(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The problem of the Pastoral Epistles"

THE PROBLEM 



OF THE 



PASTORAL EPISILES 



» THE PROBLEM 



OF THE 



PASTORAL EPISTLES 



BY 



P. N. HARRISON, M.A., D.D. 



'^ 



7^tS3. 



\ls> ^o QQ 



OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

HUMPHREY MILFORD 

1921 



Oxford University Press 

London Edinburgh Glasgoiv Copenhagen 

Neiu Tork Toronto Melbourne Cape Toiun 

Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai 

Humphrey Milford Publisher to the University 



PREFACE 

This essay is an attempt to show how the language of the 
Pastoral Epistles can be used as a key to unlock the old secret 
of their origin. 

It is not a complete Introduction to these epistles, but only 
a contribution towards that larger subject. On the other hand, 
it includes rather more than a series of linguistic studies pure, and 
simple. In the matter before us, language is only one of several 
factors which are closely interconnected and refuse to be kept in 
separate water-tight compartments. The full significance of each 
is only seen in its relation to the rest. 

This relation is indicated in Part I, where the problem is stated 
with the conclusion to which, in the mind of the present writer, 
every single item in the whole wide field of inquiry seems to lead. 
The principal items other than linguistic are named of necessity, 
for purposes of orientation ; but as, in a number of cases, the 
evidence on which they rest is not submitted, no further stress is 
laid upon them in these pages. 

Part II is devoted exclusively to linguistic evidence, and argu- 
ments based upon it, in support of the opinion that these epistles 
received their present shape at the hands, not of Paul, but of 
a Paulinist living in the early years of the second century. 

Part III deals with the genuine Pauline elements embodied in 
these epistles. These are separated from the non-Pauline material, 
and classified under two main categories: 

(i) Phrases borrowed from our ten Paulines, and (2) personal 
notes written by the real Paul to the real Timothy and Titus on 
various occasions which are specified. This is done without 
recourse to the hypothesis of a Release and Second Imprisonment ; 
and it is argued that that hypothesis, being thus superfluous and 
otherwise without adequate support, falls to the ground, and with 
it, the entire modern case for the ' genuineness ' — meaning the 
Pauline authorship — of these epistles as a whole. 

In the effort to avoid tiresome repetition of clumsy periphrases 



vi PREFACE 

and for the sake of brevity and convenience, the present writer 
has occasionally made use of terms like ' Conservative ', ' Tradi- 
tional ', ' Orthodox ', on the one hand, and ' Liberal ' or ' Critical ' 
on the other. In doing so, he wishes to disclaim the least shade 
of partisan suggestion, and to express the hope that these epithets 
will be taken, as they are certainly meant, without either prejudice 
or offence. While stating his own opinions quite frankly, it has 
been his constant desire to write at the same time very dispassion- 
ately, in all fairness, and with all due respect for the judgements^ 
and regard for the feelings, of others. 

The nucleus of the present work was read in November 1919 
before the Oxford Society of Historical Theology. It was later 
expanded into a thesis, for which, in September 1920, the Senate 
of London University conferred on the writer the degree of 
Doctor of Divinity. It has since been revised throughout and to 
a large extent re-written, with material alterations and additions, 
especially in Part III and in the Appendices. 

The Statistical data in Part II and in the Appendices are based 
upon Westcott and Hort's edition of the Neiv Testament in Greeks 
Moulton and Geden's Concordance to the Greek Testamejit, and 
Goodspeed's Index Patristicits and Index Apologeticiis. The text 
in Appendix IV follows that of A. Souter. 

Beaconsfield, 

September^ 1921. 



CONTENTS 

PART I. INTRODUCTORY 

PAGE 

1. The Problem of the Pastorals r 

2. Principles of Investigation ....... 2 

3. Thesis .... ....... 5 

4. The name * Pastoral Epistles ' : its origin, meaning, and applica- 

tion to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus . . . • ^3 

5. Other titles by which they have been designated collectively . 16 
.6. Their Common Elements and Characteristics . . . .16 

PART II. UNPAULINE ELEMENTS 

CHAPTER I. LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF 
THE PASTORALS AS COMPARED WITH THE 
OTHER PAULINES 

Introductory . . . . . . . . . .18 

1 . Vocabulary : 

A. Words found in the Pastorals, but not in Paul (i.e., not 

in the ten Paulines) : 
(i) Hapax Legomena ....... 20 

(2) In other N. T. books . . . . . .21 

B. Words found in the Pastorals and also in Paul : 

(i) Not elsewhere in the N. T 24 

(2) In other N. T. books ...... 26 

C. Words found in Paul, but not in the Pastorals : 

(i) Not elsewhere in the N. T 31 

(2) In other N. T. books 31 

a. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, &c. . . . -31 

b. Particles, prepositions, pronouns, &c. . . 36 

2. Grammar .......... 38 

3. Style .40 



Vlll 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER II. DIFFICULTY OF RECONCILING 
THESE PECULIARITIES WITH PAULINE AUTHOR- 
SHIP, EVEN BY REFERRING TO 

PAGE 

1. The Writer 45 

2. Circumstances ......... 48 

3. Subject-matter . . . . . . . . -5° 

4. Amanuensis . . . . . . . . .52 

5. Recipients .......... 54 

6. Forgery 57 

7. Literary Analogies . . . . . . -59 

8. Derivatives .......... 65 

9. Septuagint .......... 65 

ID. Classical Words . . . . . . . . .66 



CHAPTER III. LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS 
AND OF PAUL COMPARED WITH THAT OF 
EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 

Introductory ......... 

1 . Hapax Legomena in the Apostolic Fathers and Early Apologists 

2. Other non-Pauline words in ,, „ 

3. Pauline words found in the Pastorals, but not in the A. F. 

4. „ found in the Pastorals and also in the A. F. 
and Apologists ........ 

5. Pauline words wanting in the Pastorals and A. F. and Apologists 

6. General Analysis ......... 



7. Cognates and Derivatives ....... 

8. Patristic Hapax Legomena ....... 

9. The Residue : {a) Words occurring neither in Paul, nor in the 

A. F., nor in the Apologists, but found in non-Christian 
writers between a.d. 95 and 170 

{b) Words found in no other writer of that period . 

10. Summary .......... 84 



67 
68 
70 
73 

74 
74 
77 
79 
79 

82 
83 



CONTENTS 



IX 



PART III. PAULINE ELEMENTS 

CHAPTER I. PHRASES TAKEN FROM THE TEN 

EPISTLES OF PAUL 

CHAPTER II. PERSONALIA 

Section i. Reasons for refusing to regard the personal references 
in the Pastorals as fictitious ..... 

Section 2. The Second Imprisonment theory : its dependence 
on the mistaken assumption that they cannot be 
fitted into the known life of Paul .... 

Section 3. The five genuine notes. Their several dates, birth- 
places, and occasions ..... 

EPILOGUE ' 

Importance of present results, if accepted, for New Testament 
Criticism and Church History ...... 



PAGE 

87 
93 

93 

102 
115 



136 



APPENDICES 

I. Analysed Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles and of Paul 137 



II A. Stereotyped Phrases in the Pastorals 

II B. Pauline Phrases in the Pastorals 

II C. I Peter and the Pastorals 

II D. I Clement and the Pastorals . 

III. Bibliography ..... 

IV. Text of the Pastorals, showing words which do not occur 

in the ten Paulines, Hapax Legomena^ and Pauline 

Phrases 

{^Erratum, i Tim. v. 6 TiOvrjKf should be printed red.) 



166 
167 

175 
177 
179 



JS95 



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 



A. A. = Apostolic Age. 

ACL. = {Chronologie der) altchristlichen Litteratur. 

A. Y. = Apostolic Fathers. 

Ap. = Apologia I. 

Apgts. = Apologists. 

App. = Apologia II. 

App. = Appendix. 

a. p. p. = average per page. 

Ar. = Aristeides, 

Ath, = Athenagoras. 

Barn. = Ep. of Barnabas. 

1 Clem = I Clement. 

2 Clem. = 2 Clement. 

D. B. = Dictionary of the Bible. 
Dgn. = Epistula ad Diogtietum. 

Did. = Didache, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 

E. B. = Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
Ep. = Epistle or Epistula. 
Epp. = Epistles or Epistulae. 

E. T. or E. Tr. = English Translation. 

Eus. = Eusebius. 

Exeg. = Exegetische {Abhandlung etc.) 

Gk. = Greek. 

G. T. = Greek Testament. 

Hap. Leg. = Hapax Legometta or Hapax Legomenon. 

H. E. = Historia Ecclesiastica. 

Herm. = Hermas. 

„ Man. = Mandate. 

„ Sim. = Similitude. 

„ Vis. = Vision. 

H. N. T. = Historical New Testament. 
H. PB. = Holtzmann, Pastoralbriefe. 
Ign. = Ignatius. 

/. N. T. — Introduction to the New Testainent. 
Jus. = Justin. 

Mar. or M. P. = Martyrdom of Poly carp. 
Mel. = Melito. 
N. T. = New Testament. 
A". T. /. = Netv Testament Introduction. 
O. N. T. = Other books of the New Testament. 
O. T. = Old Testament. 
Pap. = Papias. 
PB. = Pastoralbriefe. 

Pastls. or t\ E. = Pastoral Epistles. 
Pline. = Pauline. 
Pip = Polycarp ad Philippenses. 

Ta. =Tatian. 

W. H. = Westcott & Hort. 
75/9 = 75 times in 9 Epistles. 



CORRIGENDA AND ADDENDA 

p. 36, 1. 6, for erpetitions read repetitions 

p. 38, ]. 26, (i) The phrase o ^eV . . . 6 hi &c. should be omitted in view 

of 2 Tim. ii. 20. 
p. 92, 1. 18, for 183 read 185 
P' 137) 1- 3> before Apostolic Fathers insert In 
p. 180, 1. II, after 1911 ; add E. F. Brown, Lon. 1917 ; 
p. 183, 1. I, after 1897; add J. Macpherson {A7nerican Journal of 

Theology, pp. 47 f.) 1900; 
p. 183,1. 13 ; after 191 1 ] add ].'V. Bartlet, 'The Historic Setting of the 

Pastoral Epistles ' {Expositor, 8th series, vol. v, pp. 47, 161, 256, 

325), London, 1913 (superseding what is said on the subject in 

Dr. Bartlet's ' Apostolic Age '). 



Harrison Pastoral Epistles 



PART I 



INTRODUCTORY 

(i) The Problem of the Pastorals, as our New Testament 
Epistles to Timothy and Titus are now usually called/ is the 
problem of their origin. 

. In setting out to write an introduction to these Epistles, or 
a serious contribution towards that large subject, the nature of 
the task before us can be defined quite simply, though the task 
itself is anything but simple. It is to solve that problem. We 
must endeavour to promote a right understanding of their message 
and a just appreciation of their worth, by seeking first to ascertain 
and establish, as far as may be, the facts of their authorship, date., 
purpose, and composition. 

Are they, or are they not, what on the surface and at first 
sight they give themselves out to be, — what official leaders of the 
Church, at any rate since the end of the second century, have 
declared them to be, and what so many millions of devout 
readers have believed them to be, — authentic first-hand products 
of the mind and heart of the Apostle Paul ? 

If so, at what moments in his life, under the stress of what 
special circumstances, and with what purposes in view, did he 
write them ? Did he, as in the case of other epistles, use an 
amanuensis? If so, who or what manner of person fiilled this 
role ; what degree of latitude did he receive, or take ; and in 
what respects, if any, did he modify the original words and 
thoughts of his master? What further explanations can be 
given, and are they adequate to account for the many and 
marked differences, in form and in substance, between these and 
the other Pauline epistles ? 

^ Chiefly on grounds of convenience, established custom, and for want of 
a better title. See further p. 13 ff. (4). 

2396 JJ 



2 INTRODUCTORY 

If not Paul, who then did write them ? And as, in this case, it 
is hardly likely that the author's name can now be recovered, at 
any rate what sort of person was he? When did he live? In 
what circumstances, and with what aims, and in what spirit did 
he pen these epistles ? Why did he conceal his own name and 
personality beneath that of the Apostle? To what extent must 
he be judged responsible for the mistake, if it be a mistake, into 
which so many generations of readers have been led ? Was the 
deception deliberate and intentional, was it conscious, on his 
part? Did he actually in the first instance deceive anybody, or 
did the misunderstanding only arise after the matter had passed 
beyond his hands ? How did he justify his procedure to himself 
and to his contemporaries? Did he or they feel that it needed 
any justification? From what sources of information did he 
derive his mental picture of the Apostle, of his life and death, his 
gospel and his methods of propagating it? What was his 
mental picture of the Apostle's life, more especially of his closing 
years ? Did he believe that Paul was released at the end of the 
Roman imprisonment recorded in Acts, visited Spain, revisited 
Ephesus, Macedonia, Corinth, Troas, Miletus, Crete, wintered 
in Nicopolis, was imprisoned in Rome a second time, and only then 
sufi"ered martyrdom ? Or is the truth rather that he had never 
dreamed of any such extension of Paul's life, and that the im- 
prisonment in which he makes Paul write 2 Timothy, was intended 
by him to be the same as we find recorded at the end of Acts, 
the same in which the epistles to Philemon, the Colossians, 
Ephesians, and Philippians had been written ? 

We speak of the ' author ' in the singular. But whether these 
writings are all by the same author, whether they are each of 
them to be regarded as a unity or as composite, and as the work 
of one mind or of more than one, may not be taken for granted, 
but is precisely one of the questions we have to investigate. 

More particularly, we have to consider and weigh carefully 
the evidence for and against the possibility that our author, if 
not Paul himself, may have had before him, and incorporated 
in his epistles, a certain quantum of genuine Pauline material. 
To what extent does he show acquaintance with our existing 
Paulines ? Has he preserved any further authentic messages of 
the Apostle of which we should otherwise know nothing ? 



INTRODUCTORY 3 

To all these questions an answer will be attempted, and the 
reasons for it given, in the ensuing pages. 

(2) Pf'inciples of Investigation. In pursuing an inquiry of 
this kind, fraught with issues of such deep and far-reaching im- 
portance as this one obviously is, the writer of a modern Intro- 
duction is rightly expected, and in honour bound, to seek out 
and examine as far as humanly possible all the available evidence 
of every kind whatsoever, internal and external, with an absolutely 
open mind and a single eye to truth. 

It would be highly improper for such a work calling itself 
historical, critical, scientific, or even simply honest, to begin by 
insisting on the necessity of any particular conclusion to any 
cause, however great or even sacred, in which the writer might 
be personally interested. The scholar who starts an investigation 
like this with the announcement that ' our whole position rests 
upon ' the genuineness, meaning the direct Pauline authorship of 
these epistles, may or may not be able to establish what he sets 
out to prove. There is always the risk that his words may 
come back to him with the unfeeling retort that in that case he 
had better seek a safer position, or else make haste to set his 
present position on a more secure basis. Meanwhile he makes 
it difficult for those who perhaps do not altogether share that 
position to feel all the confidence they might desire in the com- 
plete impartiality of his investigation. 

The one and only business before us is to discover by all 
means the truth, whatever it may be, whether or not it happens 
to coincide with our preconceived ideas, and whether or not it 
seems likely to prove convenient to the champions of any tradi- 
tion, however august, or of any institution, however necessary in 
our eyes to human welfare. The practical, as well as the theoretical, 
results of whatever may ultimately prove to be the true solution 
to our problem, must be left to the end, if indeed they belong at 
all to the proper scope of a Biblical Introduction. Once the 
truth is established, it may be safely trusted to produce its own 
results; and these will probably be largely unforeseen, possibly 
embarrassing to some people, involving some readjustment, not 
to say reconstruction, but always in the long run for the sure, 
true, and lasting benefit of mankind. 

In endeavouring to form an independent judgement on the 

B % 



4 INTRODUCTORY 

issues before him, the student of to-day must not ignore the 
labours of other men in the same field, but should faithfully 
observe the trend of previous investigations. In particular he 
must keep a very watchful eye for those points in the long 
controversy where two sets of equally learned and conscientious 
persons seem to have arrived at a deadlock, — pronouncing with 
equal conviction two quite contradictory verdicts. Inasmuch as 
both cannot be right, he must try to see whether either side has 
failed duly to note any pertinent facts adduced by the other. 
Where this cannot be demonstrated, he must try to see whether, 
by digging yet deeper, and pushing his investigations still further 
than either side has done hitherto, any issue that has so far 
remained a moot point may not be definitely settled one way or 
the other. 

One great advantage following such a review of previous efforts 
is that it enables us to eliminate a number of hypotheses which 
may seem at first sight very promising and attractive, but to 
which unanswerable objections were at once pointed out ; so 
that it would be sheer waste of time to pursue the subject any 
further in those directions. 

Another good result that probably will, and certainly should, 
follow from this wider acquaintance with other men's labours, is 
a strong check to undue self-confidence and hasty dogmatism. 

After seeing so many experienced and competent scholars 
arrive at what must be a false conclusion, apparently without 
being troubled by the shadow of a suspicion that they might after 
all be quite mistaken, it would be inexcusable, however natural, 
to let oneself fall into the very same error. 

On the other hand, it would be no less grave an error to sink 
into a state of hopeless scepticism as to the possibility of ever 
finding out the truth. However presumptuous the claim to have 
finally solved a problem which has divided for more than a 
century the best scholarship of the world, it would be an even 
greater mistake to conclude that the problem is insoluble and 
the truth incapable of demonstration. Truth will out. After 
all the issue is in this case a clear one. Either Paul wrote these 
epistles substantially as they stand or he did not. It is true that 
the latter alternative holds within itself several widely different 
possibilities. But there is no need for these to obscure the 



INTRODUCTORY 5 

main question. If not Paul himself, let the author have been 
who he may, it should be possible in the long run to find him 
out. Some hint of his own views and personality, some mark of 
the age to which he belonged, was bound to escape him, however 
skilful and, for a time, successful his attempt may have been to 
hide his own identity under that of the Apostle. The emergence 
of many such hints, or of many facts capable of such an inter- 
pretation, could not in any case be ignored. Nor would their 
significance seem to be lessened by their inobtrusiveness, nor by 
the fact that they are only now brought to light as a result of 
the most minute and searching investigation. 

Whether or not the conclusion which must finally commend 
itself to all competent minds is now in sight, the future alone can 
decide. Those who have come nearest to the real difficulties 
will be the least inclined to indulge in over-positive assertions. 
Though it may not be given us to reach the goal, it is something 
to have pressed honestly towards it, — to have laboured with the 
one desire to know the truth. Those who so labour may not 
themselves arrive. At least they may know the satisfaction of 
having cut some of those steps in the rock, by which others in 
due time will gain the summit. 

In its main outline the view put forward in these pages has no 
claim to originality. It is held by many scholars, including some 
of the very highest reputation. But certain new features are here 
embodied, and certain fresh considerations urged in its support. 
The effect of these is to encourage the belief that we have before 
us the true solution of this great problem, and the only one 
consistent with the whole of the evidence now forthcoming. 

(3) Thesis. The precise character of these conclusions will 
appear gradually and in detail as the work proceeds ; but it may 
be convenient to the reader, and may convey a sense of direction 
as he makes his way through the somewhat complicated mass of 
data which must come up for examination, if we set down here 
at the outset in barest outline the main thesis to which every 
single item in the whole variegated programme seems to point. 

It is, first, that these epistles, in anything like their present 
form, cannot be the direct work of the Apostle. This negative 
result follows from a great number and variety of considerations 
including more than one group of facts which would by itself be 



6 INTRODUCTORY 

sufficient to create the gravest doubts as to the Pauline author- 
ship, but which, in their converging and cumulative effect, seem 
altogether overwhelming and decisive. These are partly chrono- 
logical, partly linguistic, polemic, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, 
psychological, to name only the principal types of difficulty. 
But the fact is that from whatever point of view we approach these 
epistles, the further we carry our inquiry, the more impressive 
becomes the body of undeniable facts demanding explanation, 
and requiring the utmost ingenuity to reconcile them, if indeed 
they can be reconciled, with their apostolic origin. (Defenders 
of the traditional view are obliged to claim the benefit of the 
doubt, and insist on a shadowy ' off-chance ', much too often.) 

(i) It is now agreed by the overwhelming majority of con- 
servative scholars that these epistles cannot by any means be 
fitted into the known life of Paul as recorded in Acts ; and that 
if Paul wrote them, he must have done so during a period of 
release from that imprisonment in which the Lucan history 
leaves him, and at the close of a subsequent second Roman 
imprisonment. But this alleged release and second imprison- 
ment, in spite of all great names and arguments in its favour, must 
be definitely dismissed as a legend without valid historical basis. 
So far from supporting this legend, the Personalia in the Pastorals 
provide, as we shall show, conclusive evidence against it. Even 
if the second imprisonment were generally accepted as * an 
assured fact of history ' (Harnack, A. C.L. i, p. 240) the remaining 
arguments against the Pauline authorship of these epistles would 
still be, as Harnack himself maintains, decisive (ib. p. 480). 

(ii) The result of a close and comprehensive comparison of the 
language of the Pastorals with that of the ten Paulines on the 
one hand, and that of the Apostolic Fathers and early Apologists 
on the other, is itself fatal to the traditional opinion. Strong as 
the critical case here has long been admitted to be, the facts go 
far beyond any statement that has hitherto appeared even from 
the critical side, and still further beyond all that has ever yet 
been admitted or dealt with from the conservative point of view. 

It is true that these epistles contain a considerable number of un- 
mistakably Pauline phrases, such as could perfectly well have been 
taken direct from our ten ' Paulines ' by a diligent student with 
these before him. And the ' Personalia ' in a Tim. and Titus, 



INTRODUCTORY 7 

when isolated from the main body of these epistles, and sub- 
mitted to the same linguistic tests, are found to be thoroughly 
Pauline in vocabulary, idiom and style. But for the rest, the 
style of the Pastorals is radically different from Paul's, and their 
vocabulary is not that of the Apostle, but is that of early second- 
century Christendom as known to us from the writings of that 
period. See further the summary at end of Part II (p. 84 ff.). 

(iii) ^ The whole ecclesiastical situation and atmosphere pre- 
supposed in these epistles represents a stage of development 
beyond that for which we have any evidence in the lifetime of 
Paul or in the Apostolic Age, but entirely in keeping with that 
of the period to which ' Liberal ' criticism assigns them. 

(a) The False Teaching which it is a main purpose of this 
author to counteract, in so far as a clear and coherent picture of 
it can be derived from the allusions in these epistles, is of a type 
which did not, so far as we know, exist in Paul's lifetime, but 
was certainly a real danger to the Church half a century or so 
later. And the very vagueness and generality of those allusions for 
the most part is not at all in the manner of the real Paul in 
dealing with the errorists of his own day. 

(d) The positive doctrine of these epistles is professedly 
Pauline, but it is so in the sense rather of the Paulinism of the 
second and third generations than of the Apostle himself. Along 
with many undoubtedly Pauline features, terms and expressions, 
it includes certain elements which betray a later date, and omits 
others which are vital and central to the original Pauline gospel. 

(c) The type of ecclesiastical organization presupposed, and the 
whole stress and emphasis laid on matters of Church polity, is 
foreign to all that we otherwise know of Paul's ideas on such 
matters. It may be accurately defined as more advanced than the 
state of things revealed in the Roman Clement, but less so than 
in the Ignatian Epistles. 

(iv) It is psychologically inconceivable that the real Paul 
should have addressed the real Timothy and Titus in many of the 
terms, or in the general tone adopted by the Paul of these 

' iii. a-c. These paragraphs are given for purposes of orientation, and as 
an expression of personal opinion. But as the evidence on which that opinion 
is based falls beyond the scope of this essay, and as these matters are dis- 
puted, no further stress is laid upon them here. 



8 INTRODUCTORY 

epistles. It is neither necessary nor just to disparage the 
personah'ty and spirit of this author as it appears in his writing. 
But the fact remains that with all his excellent qualities and 
high gifts he was a very different type of person indeed, and for 
all his fervent admiration of the great Apostle, and loyal devotion 
to his name and memory, his was an altogether different kind of 
spirit from that which burns and throbs in every page of the 
genuine Paulines. 

The positive conclusion, then, which forms the main thesis of 
the present work is that the real author of the Pastorals was 
a devout, sincere, and earnest Paulinist, who lived at Rome or 
Ephesus, and wrote during the later years of Trajan or (? and) 
the earlier years of Hadrian's reign. He knew and had 
studied deeply every one of our ten Paulines. In addition to 
these he had access to several brief personal notes written by the 
Apostle on various occasions (to be specified in due course) to his 
friends Timothy and Titus, preserved by them till their death, 
and then bequeathed as a priceless heirloom either to the Church 
or to some trusted friend. 

There was also Paul's last letter and farewell to Timothy, 
written not long after Philippians, on the eve, or possibly on the 
very day, of his martyrdom. Our a Timothy, which was the first 
of the three to be written, consists of this last letter expanded 
and brought up to date by the auctor ad Timotheum to meet the 
requirements of his own day, with the three shorter notes, which 
had really been written earlier, two of them years earlier, added as 
a sort of appendix or postscript. In Titus also there is a genuine 
note to Titus dating from about the same time as 2 Corinthians, ap- 
pended in iii. 1 2 ff. i Timothy, which is certainly the latest of the 
three, representing as it does a distinct advance on the others in 
the development of Church organization, opposition to heretics, 
&c., is destitute of such original fragments as enrich the others ; 
the obvious and natural explanation of which fact is that, in 
responding to the demand for more letters of the same kind, our 
author had no more genuine notes in his possession, and was 
incapable of inventing such details. One or two half-hearted 
experiments in this direction (i. 3 ; iii. 14 ; v. 23) only illustrate 
the last remark, and are no exceptions to it. 

Our author was acquainted with the Synoptic tradition 



INTRODUCTORY 9 

(Matt -Luke) and perhaps with Acts, i Peter,^ and i Clement.^ 
He would naturally be acquainted also with current traditions 
touching the life and death of the Apostle. He believed honestly 
and wholeheartedly the Pauline gospel as he understood it. At 
the same time he shared the ideas of the Church of his own day 
on matters both of belief and of polity. These ideas represented, 
in fact, a perfectly natural development, due to the changed con- 
ditions of the times, in the direction of a more definite and 
formal statement of the Christian faith, and a more highly 
organized constitution of the Christian society and especially of its 
official leaders. Of this difference, however, from the original 
Pauline conceptions, the writer himself was no more aware than 
were his contemporaries. He and they regarded themselves as 
simply holding on to the genuine apostolic teaching. 

For such a man and for such minds there was much in the 
circumstances of the Church to give grounds for grave concern. 
As at all other periods, the purity and spirituality of Christian 
belief and conduct alike were continually threatened by the 
pressure of forces from the outside world. These were partly 
Jewish and partly Pagan, and so included a variety of elements 
by no means all in harmony with one another. On the one 
hand there was a tendency towards some forms of asceticism, 
on the other to a recrudescence of pagan licentiousness. In the 
sphere of doctrine there was a pronencss to wild speculation, 
leading to barren discussions, heated arguments and violent 
quarrels. An active propaganda was being carried on within 
the Church, taking the form partly of certain 'Jewish myths' 
and 'genealogies', partly of certain ceremonial restrictions 
having as their intellectual basis a dualistic philosophy. The 
propagandists showed a feverish activity, going from house to 
house, and finding no small measure of success, particularly 
among the women-folk. Some of them dabbled in the occult arts 
with the usual disastrous results. They asked and received money 
as the price of their teaching, and some had grown rich in this way. 

All this was obviously incompatible with any real loyalty or 
respect for the memory and teaching of Paul. There was, in 
fact, a marked drift away from that type of Christian profession 
which still revered his name, and clung to what was believed to 

^ Appendix II C, p. 175. ^ App. II D, p. 177. 



TO INTRODUCTORY 

be the pure original Pauline gospel. There was even in some cases 
an open depreciation of the personal influence and authority of the 
great Apostle of the Gentiles. And the new methods were 
equally inconsistent with any sort of respect for the authority of 
living representatives of the Pauline Church in general. Insub- 
ordination with all its attendant evils was spreading apace. 
Moral laxity was on the increase. And while the calm and 
happy fellowship of the Christian society was bein.]; marred by 
interminable wranglings, the Christian name and profession were 
being brought into disrepute with an outside world that watched 
with jealous eyes, only too ready to fasten on any occasion for 
scandal, or any excuse for active persecution. 

In attempting to cope with this situation, experience seemed 
to force on earnest minds the necessity for a more precise and 
definite articulation of positive belief, greater care in the selection 
of those called to hold office in the Church, a quickening of zeal, 
a deepening of piety, and a revival of enthusiasm for the Pauline 
gospel. The best minds in the Church sighed for a return of the 
old apostolic fervour and sanctity. They had every reason to 
realize the need for a rekindling of the heroic courage with 
which Paul had faced tribulation, persecution, and finally martyr- 
dom. And it seemed to some of them that nothing could be 
better calculated to promote such objects than a letter written 
in the spirit, bearing the name, and recalling the very familiar 
words of the great Apostle. 

The time was ripe for such an effort. A circulation was 
guaranteed by the existence of a circle of readers, who were 
already familiar with at least the ten Paulines which have come 
down to us. It is even conceivable that the demand may have 
found definite expression in some such form as we find suggested 
by the story in the Muratorian Canon (11. 9-15) describing the 
genesis of the Johannine Gospel, or by the statements of 
Dionysius of Corinth {c. A.D. 160, Eus. H.E. IV. xxiii), and 
Polycarp (Phil. iii. i f.), to the effect that they had written their 
epistles, not wholly on their own initiative, but at the explicit 
request of their brethren. It is, however, of course equally 
possible that the impulse to write may in the present instance 
have come purely from within or, why should we not say, from 
above, without the mediation of any human prompting? 



INTRODUCTORY ii 

There is at any rate no need for us to leave open the question 
as to the actual occasion which led to the writing of these 
epistles. The acquisition of those priceless relics, for the 
authenticity of which a responsible leader of the Church, say in 
A.D. no, may perfectly well have had ample guarantees, was 
occasion enough for such a person as we have pictured him to be. 
Natural as it was, in view of their purely private character, that 
they had not been published earlier, it was equally natural in the 
circumstances just described for our Paulinist to feel of his own 
accord, even if it were not expressly laid upon him, that this was 
a sacred trust. He would neither desire nor dare to keep his 
treasure to himself, but would be only eager to discharge to the 
best of his ability the duty and privilege of passing it on to 
others in the form that, as it seemed to him, was likely to do the 
most good. 

Had he lived in the twentieth century, no doubt he would 
have conceived and discharged his duty in this matter very 
differently. He would have handed in the original notes, exactly 
as they had come into his hands, to the curators of some great 
museum. And he would have issued to the public photographic 
facsimiles, with careful notes, detailing all relevant information. 
Where the text was defective he would have indicated the 
lacunae by asterisks. And if he ventured on an occasional con- 
jectural emendation, he would have taken care that his readers 
knew exactly what he was doing. 

But he lived in the early second century, and thought the 
greatest service he could render to his time and to the Church 
would be to issue Paul's farewell letter, and the other notes that 
came with it, not in their original bare brevity, with or without 
explanatory comments, but expanded somewhat into a message, 
an urgently needed message, to the Timothys and to the 
Church of his own day, — such as he believed the Apostle would 
have delivered, had he been still alive. His first page is 
a wonderful mosaic of phrases from the genuine Paulines, most 
carefully and skilfully fitted together. As he proceeds, and the 
necessity arises to make the Apostle speak still more clearly and 
directly to the heart and to the condition of this new time, he 
begins to compose more freely, and in doing so falls inevitably 
out of the Pauline style and phraseology into his own looser, 



3CJ INTRODUCTORY 

less nervous, and less rugged style, and into the current voca- 
bulary of his own day. 

In all this he was not conscious of misrepresenting the Apostle 
in any way ; he was not consciously deceiving anybody ; it is not, 
indeed, necessary to suppose that he did deceive anybody. 
It seems far more probable that those to whom, in the first 
instance, he showed the result of his efforts, must have been 
perfectly well aware of what he had done. It is not to be sup- 
posed that he made any attempt to impose upon his friends, by 
inscribing his epistles on old and worn papyri or in old-fashioned 
writing ! They went out for what they really were, and the 
warm appreciation with which the best minds in the Church 
received them, would not be tinged with any misunderstanding as 
to the way in which they had been written. Of course, they would 
then be copied and re-copied, and sent from church to church 
throughout the Christian world and, — in the absence of any foot- 
notes, to explain the true facts of their origin ; in the absence of 
books or papers, preserving a record of those facts ; in the 
absence, further, of trained critical faculties, still more of any 
scientific apparatus, such as might have enabled the Christians of 
the last quarter of the second century to anticipate the con- 
clusions of the twentieth century, — it was only natural that the 
true origin of these epistles should very soon be forgotten, and 
that they should come to be taken as being what, on the surface, 
they claim to be. 

But if, on the other hand, we should feel obliged to say that 
the writer of these epistles wished and intended them to be read 
as authentic messages from the Apostle Paul himself, it still would 
not follow that we should be right in passing the same moral 
strictures upon his action as if he had been writing in the 
present day. A very different standard on these matters 
prevailed in those days. The theory of literary proprietorship 
was not held in anything remotely resembling its present form. 
It was a very common practice of ancient writers to appropriate, 
without any sort of acknowledgement, verses, sentences and whole 
paragraphs from any previous work they had before them. It 
was the custom of historians of the very front rank to put into the 
mouths of public men speeches of which they could not in the 
nature of things have had any verbatim report. It was not such a 



INTRODUCTORY 13 

very great step from the speeches ascribed to St. Paul in the 
Acts, to the composition of letters in his name. In both cases 
the author believed himself to begiving a true representation, as far 
as it was in his power, of the sentiments and teaching of the Apostle. 
In neithei case should we be justified in dismissing that repre- 
sentation as purely fictitious (see Mofifatt, H. N. T., p. 622 ff.). 

(4) ^ The use of the word Pastoral in connexion with the 
Epistles to Timothy and Titus goes back at least as far as 
Thomas Aquinas (f 1274), who says in his commentary {Opera, 
ed. Frette, Paris, 1876, p. 454), 'est haec epistola quasi pastoralis 
regula, quam Apostolus tradit Timotheo, instruens de omnibus 
quaespectant ad regimen praelatorum ' ; and again in the Prologus 
in 2 Tim. (p. 502), ' in prima enim (epistola) instruit eum de 
ordinatione ecclesiastica, in hac autem secunda agit de sollicitudine 
tanta pastorali ut etiam martyrium sustineat pro cura gregis '. 

In 1703 D- N. Berdot {Exercitatio theol. exegetica in ep. S. 
Pauli ad Tituin, Halae, p. 3 f.) after quoting Augustine to the 
effect that those destined for the ministry ought to have Paul's 
epistles to Timothy and Titus constantly before his eyes, ' utpote 
quae de Pastoris Ministerii partibus agant ', goes on to say 
of Titus ' in hac itaque Epistola, quae Pastoralis est, primo 
ostendit, qualis Minister sit eligendus . . . secundo quid et 
quomodo docere debeat '. 

But the modern application of this term to these epistles 
collectively as a technical designation is rightly traced by Zahn 
{Einl. N. T. 1906, i. 447 n.) to a course of lectures delivered at the 
University of Halle in 1726-7 by Paul Anton, and edited in 
1753-5 by J. A. Maier under the title Exegetische Abhandltaig 
der Pastoral-Briefe Paidi an Timotheiim tend Titum. 

As a matter of fact, Anton himself does not seem to have thought 
of limiting the word Pastoral in this special way. He describes 
his own lectures as ' Lectiones Pastorales on the Pauline epistles, 
and especially those to Timothy and Titus '. Starting from the 
large number of Pastoralia produced, since the Reformation, 
within 'our Evangelical Church', he shows how essential an 
element these are to a right preparation for the Christian ministry, 
and insists that the ' sap and strength to use them aright ' must 
be drawn from the word of God itself. In this connexion he 
^ (4~5) An Excursus, not affecting the argument. 



14 INTRODUCTORY 

says that not only these three epistles, but also the seven 
epistolae apocalypticae or episcopales (Rev. ii, iii) are rightly to 
be described as Pastorals, in virtue of the divine guidance they 
contain for the leaders of Christian churches; and that, indeed, 
a great part of the Holy Scripture is in this sense a Pastoral, 
The title of the second volume runs Exeg. Abhandliing der 
Paulinischen Pastor al-Briefe, samt einem Anhange der Sieben 
Pastoral- Br iefe Christi an die Sieben Genieinden in Asia. Our 
epistles are thus regarded by Anton as Pastoralia Scripta par 
excellence, as the classical and supreme examples of writings 
serviceable to those who seek preparation for, and guidance in, 
the Christian ministry. 

In accordance with this view of their character, the term 
Pastoral seems to have won its way into general acceptance in 
Protestant Germany as their recognized title and common designa- 
tion, during the quarter of a century which intervened between 
the delivery of Anton's lectures and their publication by Maier, 
who refers to the usage and justifies it in his introductory pages 
(' die Pastoral-Briefe Pauli, wie sie insgemein, und zwar mit 
Recht, genennet werden '). Michaelis speaks of the ' so-called 
Pastorals' in his Einleitung, ^1777. Then in 1810 J. A. L. 
Wegscheider published his new translation and explanation of 
I Tim., as the first part of a larger work, Die Pastoral-Briefe des 
Apostels Paulus, in the preface of which he speaks of die sammt- 
lichen sogenannten Pastoral-Briefe des Ap. Paulus'. In Eich- 
horn's Einleitung in das N. T. (181 2) they are called 'Die drey 
Pastoralschreiben, zwey an Tim. u. eines an Tit.'. From that 
time onwards the usage has been general among Continental 
scholars, and at any rate since Alford's Greek Testament (1849, 
*^i884) in this country also. 

The facts about its origin were quickly forgotten, even in 
Germany. So that in 1826 the learned Heydenreich {Die 
Pastoral-Briefe Pauli) could write that they have been so called 
' from the most ancient times ' {vo)i uralten Zeiten her, vol. i, p. 7), 
with reference to the fact that early Christian teachers were 
called Pastors, Troi/zera? (Eph. iv. 11), after the prophets and 
teachers of the Jewish Church (Jer, ii. 8 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 2 f.), and 
like Jesus Himself (John x. 11 f. ; i Pet. ii. 25 ; v. 4 ; Heb. xiii. 20). 
With regard to the real fitness of this term as applied to our 



INTRODUCTORY 15 

epistles, opinions have been divided. * They are *, said the devout 
Maier, 'a Hving mirror reflecting the right organization of an 
entire Christian community, in every sort of state and circum- 
stance, and in all public and special happenings, — showing not 
only what is necessary and proper, but also what is with the 
help of Divine grace perfectly " practicable " and possible.' 
'Taken all together, our records of the Ministry {Amtslauf) of 
Christ in the gospels, and of the Apostles in Acts and of their 
successors in the teaching ofiice in these Pastorals and other 
apostolic epistles, provide us with all that we need with regard 
to the teaching office and the planting of a Christian community, 
for the blessed instruction and imitation of the entire Church till 
the end of time.' 

.On the other hand, Heydenreich's acceptance of the term is 
much more qualified. * It is true,' he says, 'that in earlier times 
these writings were wrongly regarded as a complete set of 
Pastoral instructions, and supposed to contain a sort of com- 
pendium of the entire body of Pastoral Theology. As a matter 
of fact, (i) they neither include all the occupations and duties 
which fall to a teacher of Christianity, nor (2) do they go deeply 
into special and single details, nor (3) do they bind themselves to 
the systematic arrangement which we might well expect in a real 
pastoral instruction, but not in brief letters ; (4) there is much in 
them that refers to purely local circumstances, and to conditions 
peculiar to the period when they were written ; ... (5) They are 
not exclusively concerned with matters connected with the 
teaching office. Quite other matters only very remotely connected 
with the pastoral instructions are woven into these confidential 
communications from the Apostle to his disciple and friend.' 
Nevertheless, he concludes that these epistles ought to be the 
handbook of every one who is, or expects to be, a teacher of 
religion. For here is to be found without fail a rich and open 
spring of teaching and exhortation (p. 8). 

Zahn's verdict is that it suits 1 Tim. and Titus to a certain 
extent, 2 Tim. not at all. Holtzmann {PB., p. 282 n.) remarks 
bluntly that * of real pastoral teaching, i. e. of the theory of the 
individual cure of souls, our epistles contain little or nothing'. 
Moffatt {H. N. T., 1901, p. 556 n.) goes still further. * The inade- 
quate and misleading title " pastorals ", under which these writings 



1^ INTRODUCTORY 

have suffered for about ninety years, can only be retained (and 
used as seldom as possible) on the score of convenience.' 

That they really do not contain all that might be desired from 
the modern point of view, in writings destined to be for all 
time the classical handbook on the cure of souls, for Christian 
ministers, is obvious enough. It is equally obvious that no such 
destiny was contemplated for them by their author (cf. i Tim. 
iii. 14 f.). 

(5) That these three epistles call for some common designation, 
as forming a class by themselves, was felt as early as the begin- 
ning of the seventeenth century, when they were known as the 
Pontificial epistles, as being addressed to Timothy ' Ephesino 
Primati' and Titus 'Cretensi' by their apostolic superior. 
{Operis Hierarchici, sive De Ecclesiastico Principatu, Libri iii, 
in quibus epist. tres B. Panli Apostoli, quae Po7itificiae vocari 
Solent, coninientariis ilhistrantnr, autore P. Cosma Magaliona, 
Lugduni, 1609.) At the beginning of the eighteenth we find 
them referred to by D. N. Berdot (p. 13) as * epistolae ministe- 
riales '. 

(6) Common Elements and Characteristics. All three exhibit 
a close similarity, and to a remarkable degree identity, of contents 
and subject matter, of literary style, diction, vocabulary and 
grammatical peculiarities. All three name the Apostle Paul at 
the outset as their author, and are addressed to younger helpers 
of the Apostle, known to us otherwise from the pages of the N. T., 
and of the Pauline epistles in particular, as his close friends and 
intimate companions in travel and in service. These now appear 
as his legates and representatives, commissioned by him to 
superintend the life and organization of the churches, and to 
resist certain false teachers, whose pernicious doctrines bear the 
same characteristics whether at Ephesus or in Crete. Eor the 
true faith there is now substituted a morbid preoccupation with 
myths and speculations tending to wordy battles, strife and 
contention within the Church, and to mental degeneracy, loose 
living, and evil speaking, and finally to downright moral and 
spiritual ruin, in the individual. The representatives of this 
calamitous teaching are charged with the basest of motives, — the 
sordid greed of material profit which they hope to make, and are 
making, out of the gospel. They are to be opposed in each case 



INTRODUCTORY 17 

first by the resolute and courageous stand to be taken by the 
recipient of the letter, by his stern rebukes and relentless exposure 
of their presumptuous and hollow claims, and by his personal 
example of sober, pure and holy living ; then by his loyal 
insistence on the wholesome doctrine committed to his charge ; 
and thirdly by his careful zeal in carrying out the apostolic 
instructions for the guidance and organization of the Church, 
over which he is set in authority, more especially by seeing that 
the right sort of persons are associated with himself in the 
supremely vital task of handing on the sound apostolic doctrine. 
This sound doctrine is in each case conceived and presented as 
first and foremost Paul's own message, entrusted to him, heralded 
by him. It is the Word, the faithful Word, the Word of God, — 
the sound or wholesome teaching, — conveying to all who receive 
it knowledge of the Truth. It is the message of salvation in 
Christ Jesus our Lord, — given to us through faith, by grace, — 
taking effect in a life of true piety, faith, and love here, and 
holding the promise of eternal life, — or life and immortality, — 
hereafter, at His appearing. 

In each of these short epistles the necessity for good works is 
insisted upon some half-dozen times; and in each the point of 
this is found to consist partly in the importance of making a 
favourable impression on an outside world only too ready to 
' blaspheme '. 

In addition to the number of Hapax Legomena and other 
non-Pauline words shared between two or more of the Pastorals 
(for which see Appendix I A, p. 137 f.), they are connected by a 
series of characteristic phrases which seem collectively to favour 
strongly the impression that, in their present form at any rate, 
they are the work of one mind, and that mind, another than 
Paul's (Appendix II A, p. 166 f.). 



'^S»5 



PART II 

UNPAULINE ELEMENTS 

The Linguistic Evidence. 
Introductory. 

When in the year 1807 Schleiermacher opened the Critical 
campaign against the authenticity of i Tim., he chose as the 
field for a first engagement with the forces ranged against him, 
the Hnguistic pecuHarities of that epistle, and set in the forefront 
of his attack a great array of Hapax Legomena. 

In his own less warlike metaphor, he found himself under the 
dire necessity of offering to his readers as the first course of their 
Critical banquet, no piquant hors-d'oeuvre to whet their intel- 
lectual palate, but a dry list of words ! ^ 

It is indeed far more as field-marshal ^ than as chef, that he 
shines in the present controversy. Few have relished the 
arduous lexical, grammatical, and statistical labour imposed on 
them by the form thus given to the inquiry from its outset. In 
every phase of the more than century-long conflict, to which the 
famous Sendschreiben, with the replies of Planck, Beckhaus, 
Wegscheider, &c., proved to be only a preliminary skirmish, 
there have been laments at so much counting, — not to say, 
discounting! — of Hapax Legomena \ and the hope has been 
expressed fervently, but in vain, that we might now have heard 
the last of them.^ The fact remains that these elements in 
the vocabulary of the Pastorals which are foreign not only to 
the Paulines, but to the entire N. T., form an essential part 
of the evidence on which the final decision must inevitably be 
based. It was neither the perversity of genius nor mere 

' Sendschreiben an Gass, p. 28 f. 

' ' Mit kritischem Feldherrnblick ', Holtzmann, PB , p. 7. 

« Shaw, 1904, p. 439. 



LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 19 

dialectical subtlety, which threw such emphasis upon them, but a 
true perception of their vital significance for the present issue. 
The process of collecting, sifting, and analysing these and other 
relevant linguistic data therefore still continues, and clearly must 
continue, until one side is compelled by sheer weight of evidence to 
quit the field, and a position of primary strategic importance in 
many and far-reaching issues, passes definitely into those hands 
to which it properly belongs. 

Though not by any means the only, nor even the principal, 
ground on which subsequent critics, going beyond Schleierma- 
cher, have rejected the Pauline authorship of all three Pastorals, 
the linguistic argument has all along been the one that has made 
the deepest impression on advocates of the contrary opinion ; 
and it is at this point that these have expended the greatest 
pains and energy in its defence. 

From a long line of v/orkers in this department to whom we 
are indebted for positive information, or fruitful suggestion, we 
single out, on the Conservative side, Koelling 1882-7, Bertrand 
1888, Workman 1896, Riiegg 1893, Findlay 1903, Wohlenberg 
1906, Jacquier 1907, Robert Scott 1909, N. J. D. White 1910, 
Torm 1919, Parry 1920. Among the Liberals we name here 
only Mayerhof 1838, and H. J. Holtzmann 1880, from whose 
armoury many a critic has, in the interval, drawn some of his 
most effective weapons. 

Though it is now forty years since the last-named scholar 
published his monograph on the Pastoral Epistles, that epoch- 
making work still holds the field as a classical statement of the 
case against the Pauline authorship of these epistles, and of the 
reasons for placing them in the second century. On the other 
hand it is now generally considered, even among those who find 
his main thesis unanswerable and decisive, that Holtzmann's own 
verdict requires revision in various details, and on at least one 
vital point. He failed to see in its true significance the fact that 
the language of certain passages in 2 Tim. and Titus, as well as 
their substance, unlike the rest of these epistles, is thoroughly 
Pauline in every respect. And so he made the mistake of dismiss- 
ing these Personalia as mere fiction invented by the aiictor ad 
TimotJieiim et Titum to lend colour and verisimilitude to his 
handiwork, on the basis of data found by him in Acts, the 

C 2 



2b LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

genuine Paulines, and a few scraps of second-century tradition. 
See Part III, Chapter II, pp. 93 ff. 

The present essay represents one more attempt to marshal the 
relevant facts, and set them in such a light that the secret of 
their true explanation may be revealed. It is based first on 
some acquaintance with the work of previous investigators ; but 
in the main on an entirely new and independent examination of 
the language (i) of the Pastorals, (2) of Paul and other N. T. 
writers, (3) of those second -century writers who belonged to the 
second and third generations after Paul's death, but were, on the 
' critical ' view, contemporaries of our author. 

To a certain extent the effect of what follows is simply to ex- 
hibit from a fresh point of view facts that have long been known 
and frequently been pointed out. But much is here made public, 
so far as the present writer is aware, for the first time, and has to 
be added, for whatever it may be worth, to the already formid- 
able mass of evidence which cannot easily, if it can possibly, be 
reconciled with the traditional opinion. 

I. I. The Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles 

AND of Paul 

The vocabulary of the Pastorals consists of some 902 words, of 
which 54 are proper names. Of the remaining 848, 306 or over 
36 per cent, are not to be found in any one of the ten Paulines. See 
Appendix I, pp. 137 fif. 

A I. One hundred and seventy-five, the so-called 'Pastoral 
Hapax Legomejia \ appear in no other N. T. writing outside the 
Pastorals. Of these i Tim. has 96, that is 15*2 per page, 2 Tim. 
60 or 12-9 per page, and Titus 43 or i6-i per page. 

Now Rom. has only four such words to the page, i Cor. 4-1, 
2 Cor. ^'6, Gal. 3-9, Eph. 4-6, Phil. 6-2, Col. ^-^^ i Thess. y6, 
2 Thess. 3-3, and Philem. 4. 

We are thus presented with a gradually ascending scale, 
approximating, though by no means exactly, to the chronological 
order, the maximum difference, between the two extremes, 
2 Thess. and Phil., being 2-9 per page, and the intermediate 
stages, from 2 Thess. to i Thess. 0-3, Gal. 0-3, Philem. o-i, Rom. 
o, I Cor. o-i, Eph. o*5. Col. 0*9, 2 Cor. c-i, Phil. o-6, — in no 
single case so much as a word per page. Then comes i Tim. 



OF THE PASTORALS 



21 



with an increase over Paul's previous record, of 9 per page, 
2 Tim. with an increase of 67, or else Titus with an increase of 
9*9 per page. The gap between the lowest of the Pastorals and 
the highest of the Paulines would hold the entire series from 
Thess. to Phil, more than twice over. Even if we allow the 



DIAGRAM I 


HAPAX LEGOMENA 

Numberof coords , per pa^e, not fband elsecohere in the Neou Testarrient ,-A including, 
B ejfcladin^-tuords shared btilhe Pastorals coith each other. 

2TH ITH GA PHM EO ICOR EPH COL 2C0R PHP PASTES 2TIW rH ITIM 


16 

15 

14 

13 
\1 

II 

10 

9 
8 
7 
6 

5 

4 
1 
































16 
15 
14 
13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 
4 

3 


























/ 


\ 


A 


























/ 






























/ 


























1 


1 




























1 

1 
1 


t 

1 
1 


4 


/ 


B 






















1 
1 


1 

1 , 


/ 


























1 

1 / 


i 




























1 / , 


/ 




























/// 
/// 




























^ 


f 
























/ 




y 


























/ 


















r^ 


-^ 
























3-3 3-6 3-9 -1 


\ t 


I 41 4-6 5-5 5-6 6-2 12-8 AI2-9 161 15-2 

Biol 1125 II 8 



Pastorals to help one another, by eliminating all words shared by 
them with each other, they still refuse to be brought anywhere 
near the other ten epistles. But as they are all under a common 
suspicion, the number of such words rather strengthens than, 
mitigates the case against them. See Diagram I. 

A 2. One hundred and thirty-one words occur in the Pastorals 
and in other N. T. books, but not in any Pauline epistle. Of 
these I Tim. has 77, 2 Tim. 54, and Titus 38.^ Sixty-one are 
shared with one N. T. author exclusively, viz. 3 with Matt., a with 

^ Appendix I A 2, p. 138 f. 



22 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

Mark, 29 with one or both of the Liican writings, 3 with John, lo 
with Heb., 4 with i Pet., 7 (or ? 9) with 2 Pet., 2 with Jas., and 
one with Rev. See Appendix I D, p. 148 f. 

Taking A I and 2 together, we find that i Tim. has 173 (out of 
529) words that do not appear in any of the ten Paulines, that is 
one in three of its total vocabulary, or 27-3 per page, 2 Tim. 1 14 
out of 413, or 24-4 per page, Titus 81 out of 293, or 30-4 per 
page. 

In Rom. we find 261 words which do not recur in any other 
of the ten Paulines, or 10 to the page of Westcott and Hort, in 
I Cor. ii-i, in 2 Cor. 12, in Gal. 10-3, in Eph. io-6, in Phil. 12-7, 
in Col. 9-7, in i Thess. 7-5, in 2 Thess. 87, and in Philem. 8 per 
page. 

So here again we have a closely connected series, beginning 
with the earliest, i Thess., and moving by very easy stages of less 
than a word per page, till we come to the latest, Phil., which has, 
in proportion to its length, the largest number of such words. 
The maximum difference, between the first and the last member 
of this series, amounts to 5-2 per page, representing the actual 
' development ', or the extreme limits of variation, in Paul's work- 
ing vocabulary in this respect, during the last eleven years or so 
of his recorded ministry, by the end of which he was an elderly 
man (Philem. 9). The intermediate stages are: — from i Thess. 
to Philem. 0-5, 2 Thess. 0-7, Col. i, Rom. 0-3, Gal. 0-3, Eph. 0-3, 
1 Cor. 0-5, 2 Cor. 0-9, Phil. 0-7. 

We turn back now to the Pastorals, and find an increase over 
Phil, of I4'6 in i Tim., 11-7 in 2 Tim., 177 in Titus. This 
sudden and drastic interruption of a sequence hitherto so orderly 
is, if possible, even more arresting than the great gap of 22-9 
words per page between i Thess. and Titus. (See Diagram II.) 

The line A A follows, from i Thess. to Phil., a perfectly 
normal, easy, gradual curve, with an upward trend, and there is 
nothing whatever to suggest a doubt as to the common origin 
with the rest of any member in the series. But at this point it is 
not enough to say that the line bends suddenly at a sharp angle. 
It breaks off abruptly. And the Pastorals are represented by a 
different line altogether, on quite a new plane. 

Thus the ten Paulines are seen to form a distinct group by 
themselves. And the Pastorals stand right outside that group 



DIAGRAM II 



Namber of coords, perpa^e^notjound eliecobere, A in the ten Paalines,-B in the 
Lbirleen epistles. 



ITH. PHA\ 2TH COL RO GAL EFH ICOR 2Cail PHP FASTV? 2T1 TIT ITI 



30 

29 

23 

17 
26 

25 
24 
23 
22 
21 
20 

19 
18 

17 
16 

^ 

n 
11 
10 





























i 




























i 


\ 




























/ 


\ 




























i 


\ 


k 














— 




— 


— 




/ 

/ 

1 


L 




























/ 




























1 

1 


1 

/ 
( 




























1 
1 

I 


/ 






B 






















1 
/ 
1 


I 
( 

1 




























1 

1 


/ 




























1 

; ! 

1 ! 




V 


1 


























/ 
/ 
/ 




























1 1 






























il 
ll . 










V 




















i 




























y 


























^ 




^ 


/ 

/ 














^ 


7 


^^ 


^ 




















A 


^ 




/ 




» 




















B 


^ 


y 



























SO 

29 
2,8 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

21 

20 

19 
18 
17 
16 
15 

14 

:3 

12. 

II 

10 



A 7-5 8 8-7 9-7 10 lO? 10-6 IH n 127 224 244 504 273 
B 6 6-4 7 9-2 8-8 97 9-6 99 107 11-2 185 174 '^-g 001 



24 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

at such a distance as to create at once very serious doubts indeed, 
regarding the hypothesis of their common authorship with the rest. 

In the same Diagram the second curve B B shows the result of 
eliminating in each case all words shared with one or more of 
the Pastorals, though with no Pauline epistle. From i Thess. 
to Phil, the two lines A A and B B run virtually parallel (with 
the slight exception that in Col. they come nearer than the 
average by something less than a word per page). 

Now this is precisely what we might have anticipated in a 
writer who had them all ten before him, and had studied them 
with impartial reverence as the testament of his Apostle. But 
if they were really written by Paul himself some years after Phil., 
we should rather have expected to find in them a distinctly 
closer affinity with the later epistles. 

When we come to the Pastorals themselves, the two lines 
spring violently apart ; and the distance between them here is 
the measure of those linguistic elements which they share with 
one another, but with no Pauline epistle. 

B. Words fotmd in the Pastorals and also in Paul. The 
total number of words shared by the Pastorals with one or more 
of the ten Paulines is 542. 

B I. Fifty of these may be described as exclusively Pauline, 
in the sense that they do not appear in the other books of 
the N. T. That is 3-7 per page of the Pastorals, or 7-9 per cent, 
of the 63a such words occurring in the Paulines. 

Of these 50, only 7 occur in more than i of the Pastorals, and 
only I (eTTi^arem) in all three ; 30 in only one of the Paulines, 10 
more in only two ; 3 occur in five epistles, — viz, epi?, ixviia, 
XpilcrroTi]^ ; 2 {dXodco, o-mpevco) occur in Paul himself only in 
quotations from the LXX. Only 3 (d(f)6ap(ria, oUico, xpr^crTOTr)^) 
occur more than twice in any Pauline. Of the handful which, 
rare as they are, may fairly be called distinctively or character- 
istically Pauline, practically the whole number form an integral 
part of phrases which could have been, and on our theory were, 
taken over bodily by our author from the Pauline epistles 
before him. See p. 90. 

There is thus no sort of counterweight here to set against the 
great mass of facts which tell against the Pauline authorship of 
these epistles. (Further than this we do not need to go ; and 



DIAGRAM III 



Nambcrqf cuords. pep pa^, not jburxJ elsecobere in the ten Paalines, including re- 
petitions. A, eliminating /rom 2 Tim. and Trt.tbe genuine /rag'ments . B.tatinj 
2Tim.and Tit complete. 

PHM ITH COL 2TH EPH GALTSO PHP 2C0R 1 COR PAST 2Tm TIT ITIV. 




8 85 10 10-2 i^i n\ lag 13 5 16 i7-9 31 ^g;5 972^ 95-4 



26 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

indeed must not, considering the small number of words in this 
class (113) shared by the ten Paulines themselves with one 
another, — from i'8 per page in i Cor. to 4-8 in Col.) 

B 2. There remain 492 words which are found in the Pastorals 
and in Paul and in other books of the N. T. 

{a) This figure includes of course a large number of those com- 
monest nouns, verbs, prepositions, &c., without which it would 
be, as Holtzmann says, impossible to write at all ; or else those 
universal Christian terms indispensable to any Christian writer, 
and distinctive of none. We count over 230 which occur in at 
least seven N. T. books other than the Pauline epistles, many of 
them in every book of the N. T., and nearly 60 more which are 
found in at least five. 

To this category belongs every one of the 47 words which 
appear in all ten Pauline epistles. Neither singly nor col- 
lectively does the presence of words like dSeX^o^, dydirrj, yLvojxaL, 
elSfvat, €i/xi, eiprjfr], 'i\a>, evayyiXLOv, ^eo?, Aeyco, nd9, Ki'pL09, 
TTarrjp, ttlctti?, Trviv^xa, noLeo), \dpL9, eKKXrjaia, iravTOTe, ovv,vTrip 
(gen.), dXXd, dno, avros, ydp, Si, Sid, rjfjLeh, el, eh, kv, km, rj, 'iva, 
Kai, [xerd, vvv, 6, oy, otl, ov, ovto?, nepi, npos, T19, vfiU9, coy, weigh 
so much as dust in the balance in favour of the Pauline authorship 
of any writing in which they occur. 

The same may be said of all the 30 shared with 9 epistles, 
and the 25 shared with 8, as well as the 45 or so prepositions 
beyond those already mentioned. 

(d) Then there are a great many of the most frequent and. 
characteristic Pauline terms which occur, it is true, in the 
Pastorals, but only once in one of them, and not at all in the 
other two.^ There is more in this fact than meets the eye at 

^ Only once in i Tim., and not in either of the others, we find 66 words, 
including vofxoi (twice together; but 118 times in 5 Pauline epistles), o-a^^ 
(89 times in 8 epistles), yvcbais (22 times in 6), ypd^xu (62 in 8), 6o/ci/uufo» 
16/7, nnfjcLKXrjaii 1 9/7, irpoafixoyLat I 7/7, Kn6(os 75/9. ^EKKXrjaln, which appears 
59 times and in all ten Paulines, is found thrice in I Tim., but not at all in 
either 2 Tim. or Titus. 

Only once, in 2 Tim., we find 53 Pauline words, including iyeipa 39/8, (rjTfco 
20/7, fvptV/co) (bis) 14/5, ddvaros 44/5, Kapiros I0/5, \oyi(opai 32/5, nXrjpoco 22/7, 
X"pd 21/7, ovT(os 72/9, navTore 26/10, vno with genitive 46/9. In addition to 
which, the following are entirely absent from I Tim. and Titus, dyanda 29/8, 

yiyvcoa-Ko) 46/8, 8vvap.is 45/9, BeKrjpLa 22/7, VfKpos 42/8, fiev 60/8. 

Only once, in Titus, 37 Pauline words, including dWtjXav 39/9, i^ovala 
26/6, Tre/XTTO) 14/8, 7T(pirop.rj 29/6, noTf 1 9/8, toiovtos 3^/S' 



OF THE PASTORALS 27 

first. For, as we shall show later on (pp. 90, 97), a great many 
of these very words make their solitary appearance in the 
Pastorals precisely in those passages the Pauline authorship 
of which is not denied, but is on the contrary strongly affirmed 
as an essential feature of the 'critical' theory, as stated, 
e.g., in our introductory chapter, pp. 5-13. That is, they are 
contained either (1) in the phrases taken bodily, as we think, from 
the genuine epistles, or else (2) in the Personalia incorporated in 
2 Tim. and Titus, mainly at the end of these epistles. 

(c) Further this common vocabulary of Paul and the Pastorals 
is subject to a heavy discount in respect of the numerous words 
which carry a totally different meaning in the Pastorals from 
that which Paul gives them, or are used in a radically different 
way. 

Thus dvaXafi^duco I Tim. iii. 16 of the Assumption, but in 
Paul = take up (spiritual weapons or armour, Eph. vi. 13, 16) ; 
duTixofxai Titus i. 9 = hold fast (the faithful word), i Thess. 
V. 14 = support, aid, -care for (needy members of the Church) ; 
ypdfi^ara 2 Tim. iii. 15 = the sacred writings of the O. T., or, 
if we believe Holtzmann, theological study, exegesis of the O. T. 
text by discovery of the meaning hidden behind the letters — in 
any case, in a distinctly good sense ; in Paul, ypd/x/xa, always in 
a bad sense = the mere letter of the law, ' in a disparaging sense, 
as a hindrance to true religion' (Thayer, s. v.), Rom. ii. 27, 29, 
vii. 6, 2 Cor. iii. 6 f . ; eTrayyeXXo/xai i Tim. ii. 10, vi. 2i=profess, 
make a profession of, in Paul always of the Divine promises, 
Rom. iv. 21, Gal. iii. 19; cttIxco (sc. r. row) i Tim. iv. i6 = take 
heed, Phil. ii. 16 = hold forth, hold towaids as a light (Thayer) ; 
KaOiaTrjixL Titus i. 5 = appoint to office (act.), Rom. v. 19 = (pass.) 
be made, set down, constituted [sisto) i. q. declare, show to be 
(Thayer) ; kolvo's Titus i. 4 = covtmunis in good sense, of the 
general, universal faith of the Church, Rom. xiv. 14 = levitically 
unclean; /xaKdpio9 applied to God, i Tim. i. 11, vi. 15, never so 
in Paul, Rom. iv. 7 f , xiv. 22, i Cor. vii. 40 ; fxopcfxoaLs 2 Tim. iii. 
5 = mere form, semblance, in bad sense, Rom. ii. 20 = the form 
befitting the thing, or truly expressing the fact, the very form 
(Thayer), in good sense ; o7ko9 (Oeov) 1 Tim. iii. 15 = the Church, 
in Paul always of human dwellings, especially the private house in 
which a local church meets, never of ' God's House ', Rom. xvi. 5, 



28 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

Cor. XVI*. 19, Col. iv. 15; TrapaTidrj/ii 2 Tim. ii. 2 = commit, 
entrust, to be religiously kept and taught to others (Thayer), in 
Paul only i Cor. x. 27 = set before, of food placed on a table ; 
TrpoaSexofJLai Titus ii. 13 = look for (the blessed hope), in Paul = 
welcome, of reception given to visiting saints, Rom. xvi. 2, 
Phil. ii. 29; 7rXr]po(popia) 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17 = fulfil one's ministry, 
or the Word, cause it to be shown to the full, in Paul always 
passive, = be convinced or persuaded, Rom. iv. 21, Col. iv. 12 
(cf. 17) ; vTroTiOriiiL I Tim, iv. 6 = put in mind of, Rom. xvi. 4 = 
lay down, risk (one's neck). 

It is not of course to be expected of any author that he should 
invariably use every word in exactly the same sense. Paul 
himself, as well as the writer of these epistles, uses some words 
differently in different contexts. It is a question of degree as 
well as of kind. And it can hardly be denied that the instances 
given — and they might be considerably augmented — constitute 
no small difficulty in the way of assigning both groups of epistles 
to the same author. 

{d) Conversely we are confronted with a series of passages in 
which Paul and the author of the Pastorals both say the same 
thing, but in different words. And once again we have to judge 
whether the instances, studied in detail and collectively, are 
favourable to, or even compatible with, unity of authorship. 
Thus in i Tim. iv. 12 Paul tells Timothy to let no one despise 
his youth, Kara^ppovuv, cf. Titus ii. 15 irepKppov^iv. Now it 
happens that the real Paul had occasion to warn the Corinthians 
against exactly the same possibility, and with reference to this 
same Timothy. But although he knew the word KaTa(f)povi(o. 
and used it in other contexts, Rom. ii. 4, i Cor. xi. 22, he did not 
use it, but e^ovOey^co, on this occasion — eau 8k eXOr) TijioO^os. 
/SXcTrere 'iva dcpS^co? yii^rjrai Trpoy v/j.a.9 . . . firj ris ovv avrov 
k^ov6^vrj<Tr} (i Cor. xvi. 10). In i Tim. iv 12 we have the series 
kv Xoyo) ... 61/ dydcTrr) . . . kv dyvdia . . ., which corresponds with 
2 Cor. vi 6 f., kv ayvoTrjTL . . . kv dyccTrr} . . . kv X6y(o . . ., except 
that for the Pauline ayvoTrj^ (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3) is substituted 
dyvda — a word foreign not only to Paul, but to the rest of the 
N. T., but very common in the Apostolic Fathers, whereas 
ayvoTT]^ occurs in these only twice, in Hermas. 

In expressing his thankfulness to God, Paul consistently uses 



OF THE PASTORALS 29 

the word €v\apL(TTe(o (Rom. i. 8, i Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. i. 11, Eph. i. 16, 
V. 20, Phil. i. 3, Col. i. 3, I Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. 1. 3, ii. 13, Philem. 
4) ; this author never writes that word, but uses instead the 
Latinism X'^P'-^ '^X^ { = gratiani habed) i Tim. i. 1 2, 2 Tim. i. 3. 
For the Pauline Bio (27 times in 8 epistles) he substitutes BC r]v 
ahtav (= giiam ob caicsam) 2 Tim. i. 6, 12, Titus i. 13. Where 
Paul falls back on periphrases like ety erepou evayyeXtov /xera- 
TiOivai, ra vyjrrjXa ^poveiv, to, iavrfj? t^kvu OdXireLv, we now find 
the compounds iTepoSiSaaKaXeiu, v'^r]Xo(ppovdv, r€KvoTpo(p€ii', of 
which the two first do not occur in extant literature till the 
second century. Instead of Paul's a/jLiofj.o? or dfj.€/j.7rT09, we find 
di/eTriXrjTTTO?, instead of dno Traripcof, dno irpoyovoDv. 

The expected coming of the Lord was bound to have a large 
place in the thoughts of any Pauline Christian ; but the regular 
word for it in these epistles is IvKpdviia (elsewhere in the N. T. 
only 2 Thess. ii. 8, r. iirKpafeia ttjs napovata? avrov, but found in 
2 Clement xii. i, xvii. 4, Justin, Apo/. xiv. 3, xl. i, Dml. xxii. 3, 
I Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. i. 10, iv. i, 8, Titus ii. 13), whereas Paul's 
word is irapovaia, 1 Cor. xv. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15, 
a Thess. ii. i, or aTTOKdXvyjn?, i Cor. i. 7, 2 Thess. i. 7, neither 
of which occurs in the Pastorals ; while the act or state of 
expectation is expressed by the verb TrpoaSexofMai instead of 
the Pauline dTreKBeyop-OLi, Titus ii. 13 7rpoaS€)(6fx.€voi rrju . . . 
kuLffidviLav TTJs So^rj^ rov fieydXov Oeov, cf. I Cor. i. 7 direKSe- 
XPfiivovs Tr^v dnoKdXvyjnv rov Kvpiov rj/xcoi^, Rom. viii. 19, 
Phil. iii. 20. Paul, as we have seen, uses irpoarSix^iJLaL to express 
quite another idea. Again the Paul of the Pastorals, as of the 
other epistles, makes mention of his friends in his prayers, but 
the former expresses this by jivdav exco, 2 Tim. i. 3, which the 
real Paul uses in the general sense of holding in remembrance, 
I Thess. iii. 6, while for the special sense of remembering in 
prayer he invariably says fiv^iav 7roLovfj.ai Rom. i. 10, Eph. i. 16, 
I Thess. i. 2, Phil. i. 3, Philem. 4. Both writers know of people 
whose very conscience has become defiled, but the writer 
of the Pastorals prefers /xiaii^co (14 times in Hermas, e.g. Man. 
V. 1. 6, 7. 2, cf. Justin, Bt'al. xxi. 4, Aristeides, Apol. iv. 3, v. i, 
xii. i) to the Pauline jxoXvuco, Titus i. i^, fxep-iavraL avrcov Kai 6 
vov'S Kal Tj <jvvu8r]cn^, I Cor. viii. 7> ^7 o-vpeiSrjcns avrcoy . . . 
IxoXvv^TaL. The masters whom slaves are exhorted to obey are 



so LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

SeanoTUL in these epistles (as e. g. in Hermas, Sim. v. 2. 8, 9), 
KvptoL in the Paulines, and the obedience enjoined is v-rroTda-a-eadai 
in the former, but vnaKoveiv in the latter, Titus ii. q, cf. Col. iii. 
22, Eph. vi. 5 f. For further instances, see Holtzmann P. B., 
pp. 105, 107. 

C. It now remains to consider those elements in the Pauline 
vocabulary which are conspicuous by their absence from the 
Pastorals. The total number is 103 proper names and 1,635 
other words, of which 582 are peculiar to Paul, and 1,053 
occur also in other books of the N. T. 

C I. Of these 582 exclusively Pauline words, 469 occur in one 
epistle only, and have already been dealt with. The 113 found 
in more than one epistle include a majority used by Paul him- 
self not more than twice or three times. Twenty-one occur in 
three epistles, ayiccxrvvr}, dfjjKco, SoKifxtj, '4r8eL^i9, i^ayopd^o), 
eTTi^apio), iv(r\rjp.6v(09, eucoSia, KdjiTTTOi, ficraiTxr] fiari^co^ ^o^Oos, 
irdOos, n€7roL0r]cn9, TrpoAeyco, avvai^iidXcoTos , vloOecrca, (piXoTi/xeo- 
fiai, (in 3 Homologoumena) Bv-qro^, KaraWda-ao), KXifxa, (pvpafxa. 
Eight occur in 4 epistles, dyaOaxrwr], aTreiiii, duXorrj^, iUfj, e'lTrep, 
(j/epyeia, K€v6a), vTrep^oXrj. Though the aggregate number of 
these distinctively Pauline words is certainly considerable, it 
cannot be said that their absence from the Pastorals presents 
any serious difficulty for those who maintain the Pauline author- 
ship, but only that there is still less difficulty here for the other 
side. See however below, p. 74 f 

C 2. There remain the 1,053 Pauline words, to be found in 
other N. T. books, but not in the Pastorals. Five hundred and 
thirty-two of these appear in more than one epistle. We select 
from these first (a) a number of the most frequent and characteristic 
terms in the Pauline vocabulary. 



OF THE PASTORALS 



31 



C. Pauline Words zvanthig in the Pastorals. 

C I. Not elsewhere in the N. T., but in four Pauh'ne Epistles : — 
dyadcocrvi'T], aTreifii, dnXoTT]^, €lk^, un^p, iuepyeia, k^vow. 
vnep^oXr]. 

C 2. In other N. T. books, and in five Pauline Epistles : 



aSt 



aifia . . 
aKfjo^varla 



avayKT) . . 

n^icdf . . . . 
aadfvijS 
Senior . . 

So^d^co . . 

f\fvdepos . , 

e^ipX^ixni . . 

e^ovdfveo) . . 

firaivos 

tpo) 

fvXoyia . . 

CrjXos .. . . 

6vfi6s . . 

KaraXafi^dvco 
KmnpTi^ui . , 
Knrepya^opal 
Kavxrjpa . . 
KOTTOS . , 

pepos . , 
vfiTTios , , 

VOvQeTfdi 

■naXaios 
napdnTcupa 
TTapovcria , . 
TrXeomfw . . 
Tr\( ouf^la . , 
TT^rjpcopa 
TTvevpaTiKos 
(To(pia 

aravpos . . 
reXeiof 

Tpfx^ • • 

vrraKovco 
vndpx(^ 
v(TT€pripa . . 
(fioSfiipai . . 



-: ^- »- 

Poo 

o U U 
Pi ►- r) 



3 
10 



I 
1 
I 
I 

2 

5 
2 

I 

2 

2 

13 
2 
2 
I 
I 
I 

n 
1 



3 
I 
I 
I 

9 



:> 
I 

4 

3 
I 



2 

4 
2 

23 
3 



I 

2 
6 

2 

:> 
I 

3 
I 
I 

I 
I 
I 

3 
2 

7 
6 
I 

2 



I 

13 

17 

2 

3 



Carried forward . . 



4 
3 



I 
I 

2 
2 

3 
I 
I 

o 

3 
5 
1 

I 

6 
3 
4 
4 



I 
I 

3 
2 

I 



O 



2 

4 
2 



'C ••= ^ 

C^ rC O 

W Ph U 



100 134 67 41 



2 
4 
3 
3 
I 
I 



2 
I 



I 

2 
2 
6 
2 
2 






en 
in 

u 

H 



39 24 33 



4 
I 
I 



B 

IS 

P-. 



O 

H 



21 10 



8 
12 
18 
31 

9 

5 
13 

5 

9 
1 1 
16 

8 

8 

9 
20 

8 
10 

5 

7 

5 
20 

10 

II 

17 
II 

7 

6 

16 

14 

8 

6 

12 

22 

28 

10 

8 

8 

II 

12 



471 



32 



LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 



C. Pmiline Words zvanting in the Pastorals (continued). 



Brought forward 
In six Epistles : 

aKnOapa-la . . 
anoKaXi'iTTTa) . , 
nTTOKaXvxjfis , , 

(Ttiarokr^ 

evnyyfXi^ofj.;i , . , 

f\6p6i 

KaT()(a) 

Knv)((iopai 

KOIVCOUUI 

fl€(TOS 

o(f)eiX(o 

TrapaXafilSdiij) 

Tvopvfia 

TTftocrcoTrnv 

CTKOTOS 

(TTrjKOi 

<f)p0ffC0 

Xaipu) 



u>pn 

/;/ seven Epistles . 

aKodvr'iO-KCC 

jHXe7T<i} 

yfcopi^co 

eVSi'o) 

evSoKfco 

Kevcs , 

nepiafTfio) 

npdaaco 

(Twepyds . . 

f^X^I 

/n eight Epistles : 

texop-ai 

fpyd^op.ni 

dXiyjns 

(TMfia 

vlds 



XapiCofiai . . , . 

In nine Epistles : 

eVepyeo) 

evxapioTta 

ovpavds , 

TTepmaTfw , 



poo 
o U U 



2 

3 
3 
I 

3 

3 

2 

5 
I 



22 
6 

3 

2 
2 



lO 

3 

4 



Totals 



4 

5 

13 

12 
I 

I 

6 

2 

4 



I 

3 

2 

6 

2 

3 
5 
3 

2 

5 
3 
4 

2 
I 
I 
I 

3 

2 



7 
7 

2 

4 

2 

4 
3 

2 
I 
I 



2 

6 



I 

17 

4 

I 

2 

I 

12 

2 

• • 

I 

8 
I 



5 
7 
I 
I 

2 

I 

lO 



o3 



loo 134 67 41 



I 


5 


I 


I 


4 


I 


I 


I 


I 


9 


• • 


I 


3 


9 


I 


9 


2 


4 


13 


4 


I 


5 


I 


2 



2 4 
I . . 

3 I 
5 I 



244 283 206 96 



W Ph 



I 

6 



4 
8 



I 

3 
I 



10 
8 



5 
I 

2 

2 



2 
3 



o 



39 24 33 



I 
I 
I 

8 
2 

3 
I 



I 

I 3 

1 5 

2 4 



CO 



2 
I 

3 

2 

I 



I 

2 
2 

3 
I 
I 
2 



CO 



21 10 



3 
I 

A 



I 

4 
2 



S 

3h 



102 83 89 74 42 10 



471 

9 
13 
13 
17 
70 

9 
10 

31 
13 
7 
14 
II 

9 
22 
1 1 

7 
22 
26 



41 
28 
iS 

14 
II 
12 
26 
18 
12 

13 



13 
18 
24 

87 
41 
16 



17 

25 
21 

32 



1229 



OF THE PASTORALS 33 

Nor is it only single Pauline terms, however numerous, the 
absence of which makes itself felt in reading the Pastorals, 
but whole groups of such words derived from a common root : 
e. g. kv€py€La, euepyioo, kvepyqfia, euepyij?, one or other of 
which occurs 28 times and in all 10 epistles ; also avvepyico, 
(Tuvepyos 14 times in 6 epistles, and epyd^ofLaL, Karepyd^ofxaL 
38 in 9 ; evSoKeco, evSoKia, 17 in 9 ; irepta-a-eviia, irepia-aevco, Treptcr- 
a69, TrepLO-aorepo?, TT^piaraoTepco^, 48/8 ; Kav)(dofx.ai, Kav^rifia, 
Kav\i]crL9, KaTaKav\do/xai, ^2/y ; 6(pei\iTr]9, 6(p€i\ri, 6(f>€[Xr]p.a, 
6(f)€LXa), 6(p€\ov, 6(f)€\o9, 25/7 ; (rravpo?, a-ravpoo), (rvua-ravpoco, 20/7 ; 
eXevdepia, eXevdepSo), eXevOepo?, dveXevOepo^, 29/6 ; Trpdyfia, irpd- 
^L9, 7rpd(T(T(o, 25/7 ; TrXeoveKTeco, irXeovkKT-q^, nXeove^ia, 16/6 ; 
aKOTL^ofiaiyaKoroofxai, cr kotos, 14/6 ; ao(l)ta, ao^os, 44/55 raneLvos, 
Ta7r€ii>6a>, raTrewaxris, TaTreivo<ppo(nljvr], 13/5; xeAeioy, TeXeLOTrjs, 
feXeiooi, 10/5 ; eiraLv^co, eiraLuos, 13/5 ; (vXoyeco, evXoyrjros, evXoyia, 
19/5 ; Kevos, Kevoco, 18/8 ; fiepi^o), fie pis, jxepo?^ 25/5 ; irvevfiaTLKos, 
Trvei/^ari/co)?, 23/5 ; ai/ay/ca^cB, ai^ay/c?;, 13/6 ; v(TTepia),v(TT€pr]p.a, 
va-Teprja-LS, 16/5 ; vlos, vioOecrta, 46/8 ; aTroKaXuTrrco, dnoKdXvy^ns, 
26/7 ; -^vxfi, y^v^LKOs, 17/7 ; Xuneco, Xvirrj, 22/5 ; ^Oapros, (^Oeipco, 
(p6opd,l4/6', (ppoueco, TrapacPpouecOjVTrepcPpouico, (Ppovrjjxa, (ppourjcris, 
^pouifios, 34/7 (on the other hand we find in the Pastorals, 
but not in Paul, nepKppouico, (/ipovTi^co, v\p-r}Xo(l)povico). 

Now it goes without saying that the mere absence of any one, 
or any half-dozen, of these words from an epistle counts for very 
little indeed in this connexion. No writer can be required to use 
the whole body even of his own favourite expressions every time 
he puts pen to paper. It is always open to defenders of the 
Pauline authorship to say that the Apostle used the words that 
he wanted to express his meaning at the moment, and that the 
absence of any number of his usual expressions is due simply to 
the fact that he had no need for them in the present instance. 
But — apart from the fact already noted, that in these epistles 
there are plenty of passages, where a Pauline term would have 
come in admirably, but where we find instead some expression 
foreign to Paul's other writings — there must obviously be some 
limit here. And the whole contention at this stage is that, taken 
in the mass, as well as in detail, the omission of so very much 
that is most constant and characteristic in the Pauline terminology 
constitutes a very serious objection indeed to our acceptance of 

23SS D 



34 



LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 



the Pauline authorship of these epistles. Not only does it go 
far and away beyond anything for which the variations in the 
ten Paulines had prepared us ; it implies a change of perspective, 
a shifting of horizons, a profound modification of the whole 
mental and spiritual outlook for which two or three, or even 
five years would hardly be sufficient in any man, least of all an 
old man, and such a one as this Paul the aged, with such deep- 
rooted conceptions, and so definite a system of thought and 
expression as we know him to have reached, for all his re- 
ceptivity and versatility. 



See Diagram IV. 



DIAGRAM IV 



Numbers of coords per pa§€ . incladin^ repEtitions, cubich occur in at least Jive Pauline 
epistles, but not in ajy one of the three Pastorals 

RO EPH ITH PHM GAL COL 2TH SCORICOR PHP PAUL 

20 -i 20 

19 — (A 19 

18 ~:^:^^^^^ ^3 

17 1 5C — 17 

16 J- 16 

15 j. 15 

14 — ^ 14 

IS-8 lA-5 17-5 17-6 17-7 18-2 I&9 18-5 127 20-3 17 ,,^ 
aD(xins,vbs.,adjs.,{fc.24A 162 74 10 96 89 41 '206 1%% 83 1229 ^'J 
ppartlcle5,prepns.tlcii6 25 22 12, 50 20 13 100 165 99 sea's) 



The Missing Particles, 
{b) But we must now refer to another series of omissions, which 
is if possible still more striking and significant — the long string 
of Pauline particles, enclitics, prepositions, pronouns, &c., for 
which we look in vain in these epistles. Not only are the stones 
used by this builder of a different shape and substance from those 
of the Paulines, the very clamps and mortar that hold them 
together are different too. Holtzmann mentioned {PB., p. loi) a 
couple of dozen or so of these, but the facts go far beyond any- 
thing that he or any one else has yet stated. In the table 
on pp. 36-7 there will be found a list of such words, showing the 



* See p. 32. 



P-37. 



OF THE PASTORALS 



35 



number of times that each occurs in the Pauline epistles singly 
and collectively. It is not suggested, of course, that the Apostle 
was under any obligation to use any one of these every time he 
wrote. But let any reader fully observe the facts here given in 
the mass, reflect on the evidence now produced touching Paul's 
habitual modes of thought and expression, and then consider 
the balance of probability against such a contingency as the 
traditional theory requires us to accept — viz. that within a very 
few years we should find the same writer producing three epistles 
without once happening to use a single word in all that list — 



DIAGRAM V 



Numbers, perpa^. inclodin/repetitions.qf Paaline Particles, Prepositions 
etc, cublcb do not occur at all in the Pastorals. 



EPH 2rH COL CO PHP ITH 2C0EGAL ICOR PHM PAUL 





















/ 






















/ 






















/ 


r 


















^^ 


/ 




















/ 












* 


c 










/ 






















/ 
























Y 




















[y 























48 5 5'^ 7-2 9 9-3 99 io-8 I2 la-S 89 
38 15 51 187 54 51 169 89 228 16 95'i 



II 
10 

9 

8 

7 
6 



07te or other of which has hitherto appeared on the average nine 
times to every page that Paul ever wrote. 

It is certain that nothing to approach this list can be produced 
in the case of any Pauline epistle. Of the ij2 Pauline particles, 
&c., on this page, Rom. has 58, i Cor. 69, 2 Cor. 53, Gal. 43, 
Eph. 22, Phil. 29, Col. 18, 1 Thess. 27, 2 Thess. 12, and even 
Philem. in its page and a quarter has 12. But we have to take 
into account not only the occurrence of such terms, but their 
frequent recurrence. One or other of these words appears in 
Eph. 38 times, or 4-3 per page, in 2 Thess. 15 or 5 per page, 

D 2 



Pauline Particles^ Prepositions, Pro7iouns^ &€., wanting in 

the Pastorals. 



In one epistle: — C. i. Not elsewhere in the N. T.: 

lirjTiyf, vrj, manepfi. — 2 Ccw. fjviica 2, vnfp'Kiav 2, 



Rom. ^Tot. — I Cor. Bioirep 2, 
C. 2. In other N.T. books : 





• 

S 
o 


o 
U 


o 
U 




• 

a, 
W 


• 

12 

.Oh 




. 

en 
tn 

ii 

H 


* 

(/I 

u 
H 


Oh 


Times in 
Paul. 


In one Epistle 


7 


9 


6 


5 


4 


2 


I 


I 


O 


O 


35 


„ „ incl. erpetitions 


7 


12 


II 


5 


8 


2 


1 


I 


O 


o 


47 


In two Epistles : 


































I 


• • 


• • 


2 


• • 


• « 


3 




* * 








r o !\i'c 


I 


• • 


• • 




• • 


• • 

I 


• • 


• « 

I 




I 


2 

2 


€V€K€P 


2 


• • 


4 




• • 






• • 


, . 


» • 


6 






4 

I 








T 










5 

3 


ccfxirra^ 


I 


• • 




• • 




• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


tiXIko^ 


• • 


• • 


• • 




• • 


• • 


I 


, ^ 




• • 


2 


Ka66 


I 


• • 


2 




• • 


• • 


. . 


• • 


, , 




3 


Kav 


• • 


q 


I 




• • 


• • 


* jt 


• • 


• • 




6 


Karei'avTL 


I 


• • 


2 




• • 

I 


• • 


T 


• • 




• • 


3 

2 


fxii/ovi'-yf 


2 


• • 


• • 




• • 


I 


• • 


• • 


• • 




3 


OflOLCOS 


I 


3 


• • 




• • 




» Jt 


• • 


* • 


• • 


4 






I 






^ ^ 












2 


ov , . 


I 


I 

2 

4 


3 

I 

• • 

• • 




• • 

• • 

• • 


• • 

• • 

I 

• • 


• • 

• • 

• • 


• • 

• • 

• • 


• • 

• • 


• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 


4 




2 


OVTTCO .. .. ,, .. 




3 


TravTwy 


I 


5 


TTOIOS 


r 


I 


• • 




• • 


• • 


• ^ 


.• • 




• • 


2 


(TOS J, , 




2 

I 


a A 


I 


• • 

• • 


• • 


• • 

• • 


• • 


• • 


I 

• • 


3 


Toa-ovTos ^ . .... 


- •, • 


2 


TOVVaVTt.OV . . . , 


^ ^ 


, , 


I 

• • 


I 

• • 


• • 

• • 


• • 

• • 


• • 

I 


• • 




 • 
• • 


2 


S)Se 


_ • • 


I 


2 


In three Epistles '. 
























nvco . . 








I 

3 


• • 

* • 


I 
I 


2 

• • 

I 


• « 

I 

• • 


• • 

• • 


• • 

• • 

• • 


4 


ana^ . . 






I 


3 


€vi ( = eveari) . . . . 


« « 


I 


5 


eTrei 


3 


5 


2 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


lo 


fTTfLTa . . 


• • 


7 


• • 


3 


• • 


• • 


• • 


I 


• . 


• • 


11 


ems (prep.) . . 


2 


5 


3 


• • 


• • 


• • 








• • 


ID 


onotos . . 


, 


I 
I 


• • 

• • 


I 




• • 

• • 


• • 

I 


I 

• • 


• • 


• • 


3 


OTTOV . , . . . , , , 


I 


3 


o(f)e\op . . 


• ..• 


I 


I 


I 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


3 


n'Krjv 


> • 


I 


^ • 


• • 


I 


3 


• - 


• • 


• • 


• • 


5 


TToa-os . . 


2 


» • 


I 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


I 


4 


TTOv ; . , 


I 


8 


• • 


I 




• • 




• • 


• • 


• • 


lO 


In four Epistles : 
























» 




7 

I 




3 

• • 








I 


I 




12 


SlOTt 


5 


• • 


• • 


I 


, , 


3 


• • 


• • 


ID 








I 


I 




I 




4 

I 






7 
5 
4 


e^a> 




2 


T 








I 


• • 


• • 


eero) 


I 


I 


I 


• • 


I 


• • 


« • 


• • 


, , 


• • 


Ibov 


I 


I 


6 


I 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


• • 


9 




2"; 


3? 


22 


l8 


8 


II 


8 


ID 


I 


3 


76 


„ repetitions .. .. 


35 


8o 


42 


24 


12 


13 


9 


i6 


I 


3 


235 



Rom. antvavTi, devpo, fiera^v, fifjTro), irov, ixrei. — I Cor. 817, fnavco, oXcof 3, ov8e- 
TTOTf, Tolvvv. — 2 Cor. eaaidfii, fitjTi 2, ttjXikol'tos, rpis 3> — Gal. avcodtv, apa, tidtas, 
Idt, nrjXUos. — Eph. (S, p.aKpa.v 1, vTCfpavui 2, dficfyoTfpoi 3. — Phil, f^avr^s, Kainep. — 
I Thess. Toiyapovv. — Col. vTrfpavTios. 





















in 


, 


c 


c? 


















t/> 


in 










g 


1-1 







. 


.r; 


• 




45 




6cL, 


(/I "J i2 

QJ 4) tj 







u 


u 


a 


a, 


JS 





h 


H 


J5 


S'^< 




C^ 


^H 


N 





W 


Cm 


u 


^H 


« 


et, 


H 




In four Eps. (ctd.j: 


























C. 2 Kaddnep 


6 


2 


4 






• • 


• • 


4 


• 9 


• • 


16 





OV ptj . . 


I 


I 


• « 







• • 


• * 


2 




. . 


6 


20 


fat 


I 


• • 


6 


* . 




I 


• . 


. . 




I 


9 


6 


p(v. .0 oe . . 


• • 


I 


• • 


I 




I 


• • 


• • 


• « 


• • 


4 


4 


ol 


3 


I 


1 


• • 




• • 


I 


. a 


• • 




6 


14 


OVTi 


10 


15 


• • 


5 




• • 


• • 


5 




• • 


35 


22 


OV\l 


3 


13 


I 


• • 






• r 


I 


• • 


• » 


18 


21 


Tvapd (acc.) . . 


7 


3 


'7 


2 








• • 


• • 


• • 


14 


22 


vp.trfpos 


I 


2 


I 


I 




• « 


. . 


• • 


• • 




5 


3 


C. I (Iktj 


I 


I 


. . 


2 






I 


• • 


• • 


 • 


5 





tmtp . . 


3 


2 


I 


• . 




• • 




• • 


I 


• • 


7 





UnTTCOff • • 




2 


5 


2 








I 






10 


Q_ 


In five Epistles : 
























C. 2 avTi 


I 


I 


• • 


• . 


I 


• • 


. . 


I 


I 


. . 


5 


5 


avTos 0. . 


3 


3 







• • 








2 




13 


13 


aXpi' " • • 


4 


3 


3 


2 




2 






• • 




14 


21 


oixeri . . 


7 


• • 


2 


4 


I 


• « 


• • 


. . 


• • 


I 


15 


7 


naXip . , 


5 


3 


8 


9 


• • 


3 




. • 


• • 


• • 


28 


8 


re 


18 


3 


2 




I 


I 


. • 


. . 


• • 


• • 


25 


154 


toanep . . 


b 


5 


I 


I 


• a 


• • 




1 


• • 




14 


5 


In Six Epistles : 


























mi 


7 


8 


5 


3 


• • 


I 


1 


• • 


• • 


• • 


25 


56 


avroi. . 


6 


17 


9 


• • 


I 


8 


• . 


I 


• . 


• . 


42 


14 


(fiavTov 


I 


6 


4 




• • 


I 




• • 


• • 


I 


14 


6 


vvvl Se . . 


7 


4 


2 


• • 


I 




2 




• • 





18 


2 


OTTas . . 


3 


I 


2 










« • 


I 


I 


9 


22 


wf'p (accus.) 


• • 


2 


3 




2 


I 




• • 


• • 


T 


II 


3 


In seven Epistles : 


























npa 


II 


5 


3 


5 


I 


• • 


. . 


I 


I 


• • 


27 


II 


y^ 


3 


3 


2 


I 


2 


I 


I 






• • 


13 


13 


ert 


5 


4 


I 


3 


• • 


I 




• • 


I 


I 


16 


21 


Kayo) 


2 


10 


9 


2 


I 


2 




I 






27 


12 


Tore 


I 


6 


I 


3 


« • 


• • 


I 


I 


I 


• . 


14 


36 


(oaTe . . 


5 


14 


7 


5 


• • 


3 




3 


2 




39 


13 


In eight Epistles : 


























610 


6 


2 


9 


I 


s 


I 


• • 


2 


• • 


I 


27 


10 


fLT( 


4 


27 


14 


• • 


2 


6 


6 


2 


2 


• • 


63 





fp-OS 


2 


9 


3 


2 


• • 


2 


I 


• • 


I 


3 


23 


3 


a-vp 


4 


7 


6 


4 


2 


4 


7 


4 


« • 


• • 


3« 


77 


In nine Epistles : 


























eKaaros 


5 


22 


2 


2 


5 


2 


1 


2 


I 


• • 


42 


16 


Total words . . 


58 


69 


53 


43 


22 


29 


18 


27 


12 


12 


112 




„ repetitns. 


187 288 ] 


63 


89 


3« 


54 


31 


51 


15 


16 


932 


Diag. V. 


In at least five 


























Epp. including rep. 


[16 1 


[65 1 


00 


50 


25 


39 


20 


22 


13 


12 


562 


Diag.IV. 



38 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

in Col. 31 or 5-2 per page, in Rom. 187 or 7-2 per page, Phil. 54 
or 9 per page, in i Thess. 51 or 9-3 per page, in a Cor. 163 or 
9-9 per page, in Gal. 89 = io-8 per page, in i Cor. 288 = 12 per 
page, and in Philem. 16 = i2-8 per page. The total number of 
occurrences for the whole ten epistles is 932, or on the average 
8-9 per page. See Diagram V, p. ^^. 

Nor is it possible to redress the balance by referring to the 77 
Pauline particles, &c., which do appear in the Pastorals. For 
of these — 

(t) Every one occurs also in the Apostolic Fathers, and in the 
Apologists, and the great majority in practically every book of 
theN.T. 

(2) Thirty-six occur in all three Pastorals, of which all occur 
in Rom., all but one in i and a Cor., Eph., Phil., Gal., ^^ in 
Col., 30 in I Thess., 31 in 2 Thess., and 30 even in Philem. ! 

(3) Of the remaining 41, 7 occur in only one Pauline, 17 in 
only one of the Pastorals, and 10 only once in the Pastorals. 

2. Grammatical Peculiarities. 

But the familiar Pauline particles are not by any means the 
only grammatical forms which by their absence create in our 
minds a sense of strangeness and unfamiliarity as often as we 
come to the Pastorals fresh from a careful study of the genuine 
Paulines. 

I. In his use of the definite article our author betrays a notice- 
ably different method of literary craftsmanship. 

(i) The phrase 6 /zer . . . 6 Si, which Paul finds so handy (cf. 
I Cor. vii. 7, Gal. iv. 23, Eph. iv. 11, Phil. i. 16), is not in 
these epistles. 

(ii) Nor is the 6 with nominative in place of a vocative which 
appears 9 times in Rom., 4 in Gal., 6 in Eph., 6 in Col., e.g. 
Rom. ii. I o) dj/dpayjre irds 6 Kpivoiv, Gal. iv. 6 'A^^a 6 irarrip, 
Eph. v. 14 eyeipe 6 KaOevScou. 

(iii) Nor the 6 with a numeral — cf. Rom. v. 17 rS tov eVoy 
TrapairrcofiaTL, I Cor. iv. 6, vi. 16, xiii. 13 ra rpia ravra, xiv. 30 
6 wpaiTO^, XV. 5 To^^ ScoSfKa, 2 Cor. xiii. 2, Eph. ii. 15, v. 31, 
Phil. i. 23, I Thess. v. 11. 

(iv) Nor the 6 with an infinitive — 34 times in Rom., 14 in 
I Cor., 18 in 2 Cor., 5 in Gal., 3 in Eph., 15 in Phil., 10 in 



OF THE PASTORALS 39 

I Thess., 7 in 2 Thess., e.g. Rom. i. 11 e/? to (XTripLy^OrjvaL vfid^, 
Phil. i. 21 'Efiol yap to ^rjv Xpicrrbs Kal to dnoOav^lv K^p8o<i} 

(v) Nor the tov with infinitive — 9 times in Rom., 3 in i Cor , 
4 in 2 Cor., 3 in Gal., 2 in Phil., e.g. i Cor. ix. 10 kn' eXviSt 
tov ]XiTe)(€ii', Gal. ii. 12 Trpb tov yap kXOelv. 

(vi) Nor the 6 with an adverb — Rom. i. 13 d-)(pL tov Sevpo, viii. 
22, xiii. 9 f, XV. 2, vii. 29, 2 Cor. iv. 16, v. 16, x. 16, xi. 28, .\iii. 2, 
Gal. V. 14. vi. 17 TOV Xoiirov, Eph. ii. 17, iv. 25, vi. 10, Phil. i. 5 
«xpt TOV vvv, iii. 14 r^y dvo) KXija-eca^, iv. 8, Col. iii. i f., iv. 5, 9, 

1 Thess. iv. 12, 2 Thess. iii. i, cf. ix infra, (But of. i Tim. iii. 7.) 
(vii) Nor with an interjection — cf. i Cor. xiv. 16 to dyir\v, 

2 Cor. i. 17, 20 TO vaX Kal to ov. 

(viii) Nor with a whole sentence — cf. Rom. viii, 26 to yap tl 
TTpocrev^doneda Ka6b 8h ovk oiSafi^f, xiii. 9 dis, I Cor. iv. 6, 
Gal. V. 14 TreTrX-qpcoTai kv Ta> 'Ayawqaeis toi/ nXrjcriov crov coy 
creavTov, Eph. iv. 9 to Se due^r) tl kcTTLV ei /xtj oti Kal KaTe^r), 
I Thess. iv. i KaOco? Trap^Xd/SeTe Trap r]fxa)v to ttcS? 8f.l vfid^ 
vepnraTeLi', cf. T Tim. iii. 15 I'va elSfj^ 7r<5y Sei . . . dvacTTpecfieaOai. 

(ix) On the other hand we find outco?, which Paul uses adverbi- 
ally I Cor. xiv. 25, Gal. iii. 21, converted by our author into an 
adjective by the preceding article, i Tim. v. 3, 5, 16 77 ovtco^ X^P^y 
vi. 19 Tfj9 6vT(os ^(ofj^. Cf. Ep. ad Diog. x. 7 tov ovtco? OdvaTov, 
Aristeides, Apol. iv. i tov 6Wa>y ^eoi} = Jus. Ap. xiii. 13, Athenag. 
Sitppl. vii. 2 TO ovTixis 6€iou, xii. 2 top ovtoos Oeov, XV. 3, xxiii. 4 to 

Ol'TQiS 6v. 

2. (wy occurs fairly often in the Pastorals, generally followed 
by a substantive— e. g. napuKaXei &)y naTepa, i Tim. v. i. But 
there is no trace in them of the Pauline uses of coy — 

(i) with the participle, Rom. iv. 17 kuXovvto^ to, /xr} ovTa coy 
ouTa, Col. ii. 20 coy ^cot/rey kv Koafxo), t Thess. ii. 4 ovx <»y 
dvOpd>noL^ dpk(XKOVTe^, Rom. xv. 15 <*>? kTravafiifivqa-Koot/ v/xd^, 
I Cor. iv. 7, 18, v. 3, vii. 25 (cf. i Tim. i. 13, 16) coy T]Xe-q fievos y 
vii. 30 f. ol KXaioj/Tcs coy fxrj KXatovTes, ol ^aipovTis coy firj ')(aLpovTiS 
ktX., 2 Cor. x. 2, vi. 9 coy dyvoov/xfyoi ktX. 

(ii) with the adverb — cf. Rom. i. 9 coy dSiaX^LnTco^ jiveiav 
v/jlcov 7roiovfj.at (contrast 2 Tim. i. 3 coy dSLaXinvTov  ex<» rriv 

^ That is, 106 times in Paul. On this 'articular infinitive' see J. H. 
Moulton, Gratmnar of N. T. Greek, vol. i, p. 216, and Moulton and Geden, 
Concordance to the G. T., p. 679. 



40 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

vepl <rov fiveiav, where as Holtzmann points out, PB., p. iii, the 
change leaves no proper motive for the coy), i Cor. ix. 26 ovroi 
Tpi)(a) a>9 ovK dSrjXoos, ovTco 7rvKT€va> (oy ovk dipa Sepcou, Phil. i. 20 
toy TrdvroT^ kol vvv. 

(iii) with dv — Rom. xv. 24 coy dv TTopevcofiaL e/y r. Xnaviav^ 
1 Cor. xi. 34 fd Xonrd coy dv eXOco SLard^opai, Phil. ii. 23. 

3. Another favourite construction of Paul's which is con- 
spicuous by its absence from the Pastorals, is the series of 
prepositions in a single sentence with reference to some one 
subject, "which is thus 'defined on every side' (Winer), e.g. 
Rom. i. 17 e/f TTicrrecoy e/y niariv, iii. 22 eh Trarray Kal €Trl ndura9, 
xi. 36 e^ avTov Kal St' avrov koI e/y avTOv, Gal. i. I ovk an 
dvBpa)Tr(t)v ovSe Si' dvBpwnov, 2 Cor. xiii. 8 ov yap SwdfieOd ri 
Kara ri]? dXi]6€ia9 dXXd vrrep ttj^ dXrjOeias, Col. i. 16 iv avT(o 
kKTiaBri rd iravTa . . . rd iravra SC avrov k. ety avrbv cKriarai, 
Eph. iv. 6 e/y ^eoy k. irarrjp Travruiv 6 im Trdvroav k. Std iravroiv 
Kal kv irda-iv vp.lv (cf. I Tim. ii. 5 f.), i Cor. xii. 8 f . £ pkv yap Sid 
rov 7rv€vparo9 . . . dXX(o Se . . . Kara rb avro trvivpa, iripcp . . . 
eu TO) avr^ irvevpari KrX., 2 Cor. iii. 18 dirb So^rj^ e/y So^av 
(Holtzmann, PB., p. 101 ; Winer, Grammar of N. T. Greek, 
E. Tr., p. 521 f.). 

3. Style. 

But we have not yet finished with the missing particles, 
prepositions, and connecting words generally. 

When we have asserted with complete confidence that their 
absence on the scale now demonstrated cannot by any possibility 
be dismissed as merely accidental, nor evaded by suggesting 
airily that the writer had no occasion to use them, nor explained 
away by any reference to changed circumstances, subject-matter, 
or readers, we are left face to face with the necessity of considering 
what is really involved in the facts before us. 

This is nothing less than a radical peculiarity of style. It can 
hardly have been that the words in question were unknown to 
the writer ! But his avoidance of them, whether conscious, 
deliberate or otherwise, is a strongly marked and highly signi- 
ficant feature in his mode of self-expression. Nor is it confined 
to any mere surface quality. It is intimately connected with his 
whole way of thinking and of reasoning, with his very tempera- 
ment and, in a word, his personality. ' Le style, c'est I'homme.' 



OF THE PASTORALS 41 

Now the style with which the ten Paulines have made us 
familiar, shows all the irregularities and abruptnesses — the ten- 
dency to fly off at a tangent, the sudden turns and swift asides, 
the parentheses and anacolutha, the frequent incursions of the 
unexpected — which mark the products of a mind carried along, 
and sometimes carried away, by the intensity of its own thoughts. 
Such minds are apt to be preoccupied with the substance of 
what they are trying to say, and somewhat careless as to its mere 
form. They tend to be oblivious, rather than scornful, of gram- 
matical rules and precedents as such. 

At the same time there runs through all these roughnesses the 
strong thread of a logical and reasoned argument. If the author 
does go off sometimes at a tangent, he comes back again to 
his main point, and takes up his thread, showing that he had 
never really lost sight of it. As Holtzmann says {PB., p. 101 f.), 
' the real Paul shows himself always equally possessed by his 
subject, or master of it, and carries his treatment of it through to 
a definite goal ; so that even the smallest aside has ever its due 
relation to, and place in, the whole ; hence it is a pleasure to 
observe how surely and purposefully this literary tactic proceeds 
(2 Cor. X. 5) *. 

It is precisely here that our particles, prepositions, &c., come in. 
They are the links which bind the sundry and often variegated 
elements into a strongly compact and articulate unity ; they are the 
tendons and ligaments ' by which the whole body is fitly framed and 
knit together through that which every joint supplieth'. That they 
do not aggressively thrust themselves forward, nor distract atten- 
tion to themselves, but do their work quietly and unobtrusively, is 
just as it should be. Were they withdrawn, we should soon feel 
that there was something wrong, though we might not at once 
perceive what was the matter, unless we happened to be trained 
anatomists. 

As a literary composition the Pastorals are admittedly less ot 

a living organism, and more of an edifice— a somewhat rambling 

edifice.^ In this structure the stones are less rugged than 

the Paul of Rom. or Phil, would have chosen, brick cast in 

^ 'Le style des pastorales n'a pas la vigueur et la force, la viyacit6 et 
I'impetuosite, la vie et la variete, I'apre rudesse de celui des epitres aux 
Remains ou aux Galates. 11 est lent, monotone, pesant, diffus, decousu' 
(Jacquier, Histoire des livres dti N. 7'., i. p. 366). 



42 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

a mould, instead of granite rough-hewn from the quarry, and they 
are laid more loosely one on the other than would have suited 
either the mind of Paul or the nature of his material. Like that 
spirit whose living garment it is, the style of the Paulines is 
nothing if not vivid, intense, dynamic, yes, often even volcanic 
and explosive, always impatient of any curb or restraint from 
man-made rules. The only bondage to which it will bow the 
neck is that of the life-giving Spirit ' bringing into captivity every 
thought to the obedience of Christ ' (2 Cor. x. 5). 

But the style of the Pastorals is by comparison sober, didactic, 
static, conscientious, domesticated. It lacks the Pauline impetus, 
the drive and surge of mighty thoughts never spoken before, 
struggling now for expression, and chafing against the limitations 
of human speech. It lacks too the Pauline grip and intellectual 
mastery, strong, clear, logical, sweeping and comprehensive — 
seeing the end of an argument from the beginning, and binding 
the whole tumultuous mass into a throbbing vital unity. 

It is much rather the speech of a man greatly concerned to 
preserve intact the correct pattern of sound words, which must 
be diligently memorized, and faithfully recited, and so passed on 
from lip to lip as the one duly authorized expression of saving 
truth. Such with him is the sacred deposit to be handed on from 
one generation of accredited teachers to another. 

But with Paul it was a blazing torch, passing from soul to soul, 
kindled in each from the same Divine fire which burns for ever 
on the great altar of the Cross. The Cross ! Not once does our 
author write that word, nor any of its cognates. ' Still,' it may 
be said, ' he presupposes it in speaking of Him who gave Him- 
self for all.' True, but it was many years since the real Paul 
made his great resolve to know nothing among his friends save 
Jesus Christ and Him crucified (i Cor. ii. 2), many years since 
he wrote a letter (except the little note to Philemon) without 
some more explicit reference to that burning focus of the Gospel 
as he conceived it. (a-ravpo^, o-Tavpoo), crvva-Tavpoo), 20 times in 
7 epistles, in all 4 Homologoumena, and in all 3 epistles of the 
Roman imprisonment.) 

The style of the Pastorals has also its irregularities, but these 
do not on examination tend to qualify in any way, but rather to 
confirm our impression, that it is a different order of mind which 



OF THE PASTORALS 43 

meets us here from that revealed in the grammatical tours de 
force of the Paulines. 

We have (i) the passages in which he does, it is true, make 
use of Pauline prepositions, &c., but with a certain looseness and 
vagueness which only throws into relief the absence of any strong 
logical coherence. What logical connexion with the preceding 
passage necessitates the ovv, i Tim. ii. i ? (Contrast Rom. ii. 21.) 
Wherein lies the similarity which we are led to expect by the 
(wo-aurooy, I Tim. ii. 9 ? (Contrast i Cor. xi. 25,) What is the 
point of the yap, i Tim. ii. 5? What has happened to the 
apodosis without which the KaQm, i Tim. i. 3 (our solitary 
instance of this favourite Pauline particle — 84 times in 9 epistles), 
is left hanging in the air? It has (to quote Winer) 'escaped his 
attention' (E. Tr., p. 713). 

But this last passage has been claimed as a clinching example 
of (2) the anacolutha which are so frequent and so marked a 
feature of the genuine Pauline style. Ramsay {Expositor, 19095 
p. 481) finds here a proof that this is a genuine letter, inasmuch 
as the writer confidently assumed the ability of his correspondent 
to fill the gap correctly by sympathetic comprehension of the 
suppressed thought. The ingenuity of this theory may appeal to 
some. Others will find Winer's simpler explanation more con- 
vincing. But in neither case does this passage, even with the 
help of Titus i. 2 f. (r\v kniriyy^LXaro . . . €<pav€p<jocreu Se . . . tov \6yov 
avTov) at all adequately balance the effect produced by a careful 
study of the long series of Pauline anacolutha to be found in any 
good Grammar of N.T. Greek, e.g. Winer (E.Tr., pp. 709-21).^ It 
is no doubt diflficult to avoid a certain degree of subjectivity in a 
comparison of this kind ; but the composition of a passage like 
I Tim. i. 3 sqq., seems to differ from that of say Rom. v. 1 2, as the 
slow windings of a stream through flat country differ from the 
headlong rush of a mountain torrent. Nor do the very occasional 
brief and simple parentheses i Tim. ii. 7, 2 Tim. i. 18, iv. 7, 14, 
16, by any means fill the place of such outbursts as Gal. ii. 4 f., 
6 f. (apart from the fact that the first is taken bodily, as we 
shall see,^ from Rom. ix. i, while the remaining four occur in 
precisely those verses which most critics agree in regarding as 
fragments of genuine Pauline notes). 

^ Blass, E. Tr., pp. 282-6. ^ p. 90 f. 



44 



LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 



(3) To the same order of construction, and arising from similar 
tendencies in the mind of Paul, belong the frequent instances of 
Oratio Vaviata, consisting of pairs of sentences running parallel 
and more or less synonymous with one another, and each complete 
in itself, cf. Rom. iv. 12, i Cor. vii. 13 yw^ r\Ti^ t\^i di/Spa diriaToi', 
Kal 0VT09 (TVPev8oK€i 0LK€ii/ fier' avT7]9, firj d(piiTa> tou ai/Spa, I Cor. 
xiv. I ^r]\ovT€ TO. nv^vfiaTiKa, lidXXov 8\ 'iva irpocprjTevrjTe. Some- 
times it takes the form of a transition from the singular to the 
plural, e. g. Rom. iii. 7 f., xii. 1 6 f., 20 ff., i Cor. iv. 6, 2 Cor. xi, 6 el 
Si Kal ISicoTi]^ TO) \6ya> . . . dXX' kv iravTl (f)av€pd)(TauT€9 ktX, Of 
these heterogeneous periods too the Pastorals are innocent. 

Yet another idiosyncrasy of our author is his curious fondness 



DIAGRAM VI 



Nciroberofcuords.perpa^t.be^nniD^cuitba-privative 

GAL PHM2C0RC0L RO PHP EPH ICOK ITH 2TH ITl 2T] TIT 



/ 
/ 
/ 

/ 

/    -  

/ 
/ 



1-5 1-6 1-6 17 1-8 1-8 1-9 a 2-2 2-3 41 51 67^ 



for certain types of compound, notably those bearing either the 
prefix 0iAo- or a- privative. There is of course nothing unusual 
in the mere occurrence of either of these formations, both of which 
are found occasionally in Paul himself and in many other writers. 
What strikes our notice here is their quite extraordinary fre- 
quency. That this is no merely subjective impression may be seen 
from Diagram VI. Words beginning with a- privative appear 
not less than 1-5 and not more than 2-3 on the average to the 
page of any Pauline ; but the average in i Tim. is 4-1, in 2 Tim. 
5-1, in Titus 6-75.^ It is not easy to find any satisfactory reason 
why the same writer who in ten epistles over eleven years kept 
within these narrow limits, should have gone beyond them to 
this extent in just these three instances. 

^ Appendix I G, p. 155 f. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 45 

II. Difficulty of Reconciling the Linguistic Pecu- 
liarities OF THE Pastorals with their Pauline 
Authorship. 

In vocabulary, grammar, and style, then, the Pastorals show a 
marked divergence from all other epistles bearing the name of 
Paul ; and this divergence is now seen to be even wider and to go 
deeper than had been realized hitherto. 

We have, therefore, to consider quite dispassionately — 
remembering the high demands of Truth and the grave issues 
involved — whether or not the facts before us are compatible with 
the hypothesis of Pauline authorship. Can they be adequately 
explained by taking into account the many-sided personality of 
Paul, the natural development of his thought and modes of self- 
expression, the changed circumstances and subject-matter, the 
persons addressed, the possible influence of an amanuensis, or any 
other of the considerations which have been, or can be, advanced 
in support of that hypothesis ? 

I. The Writer. 

Complete uniformity of style, diction, and vocabulary must 
not, of course, be expected in any author, least of all in one with 
a mind so versatile, pliable, original, fresh, impressionable, and 
creative as the Apostle. A certain progressive modification was 
required by all analogy and by the laws of development, and is 
in fact visible in the existing Paulines, which fall into three clearly 
defined groups— («) the earliest letters, i and 2 Thess., {b) the 
four 'Homologoumena', Rom., i and 2 Cor., Gal., and {c) the 
epistles of the Roman Imprisonment, Eph., Col,, Philem., and 
Phil. With these last the Pastorals have quite a number of words 
in common. Given a further period of from two to five years, 
with the added experience they must have brought, then, it is 
argued, the evidence of yet further changes in the Apostle's 
diction ought not to surprise us half so much as would the absence 
of any such change. 

Now we shall presently show reason to doubt whether room 
can be found in the life of the Apostle for this further develop- 
ment (Part III, pp. 102 ff.). But, waiving this point, the question 



46 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

still remains whether the actual extent of the departure from 
Paul's manner is not far too great to be accounted for along these 
lines. 

(i) Paul's mind did not first begin to be versatile, original, or 
impressionable at the end of his career. It had all these character- 
istics, and showed them more clearly in many ways, in the earlier 
epistles. But, like all true genius, it moved within certain limits, 
and was subject to certain laws, some consciously self-imposed, 
others quite unconscious, imposed by the very nature of things. 

The number of Greek words known to Paul, though consider- 
able — far greater, doubtless, than the number actually used in 
his surviving ten epistles — was not by any means unlimited. His 
working vocabulary, as seen in those epistles over a period of 
eleven years, was drawn from within a circle, or series of concentric 
circles, which can be described with precision. It included 2,177 
different words, of which 1,113 do not occur in more than one 
epistle, 396 occur in two epistles, 230 in three, 126 in four, 96 in 
five, ^'>, in six, 46 in seven, ^^ in eight, -3^^ in nine, and 47 in ten. 
See Appendix I, p. 160. 

The originality and freshness of Paul's mind is seen in the 
wonderful way in which it uses these limited materials to express 
such a series of new thoughts and boundless aspirations, and such 
a mighty conception of reality seen and unseen, as had never 
before been put into words at all. 

To discard suddenly at the end of a lifetime such a host of 
favourite expressions, and introduce in their stead such a mass 
of new and unfamiliar terms, might indicate a certain kind of 
versatility, but not the kind which we have any reason for 
attributing to the Apostle. 

We have certainly no wish to impose an arbitrary cast-iron 
standard on any human mind, least of all on Paul's mind. 
Deissmann is perfectly right in saying that one must not try ' to 
mechanize the wonderful variety of the linguistic elements in the 
Greek Bible '. ^ But Deissmann would be the last to commit 
us or himself to the principle that there are no limits at all to the 
probabilities of variation in an author's style and vocabulary. It 
may have been physically possible for Paul to have composed 
a trio of letters in which not only 21 per cent, but 90 per cent. 

^ Bibelstudien, 1895, ?• 66. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 47 

of the words were Hapax Legomena. But it remains equally 
incredible that he should have done so, whether by accident or 
by design. 

(ii) Each of the Paulines, and each of the three groups into 
which they fall chronologically, has naturally a certain number 
of expressions peculiar to itself, and lacks some that appear 
more or less frequently in the others. But that this is so to a 
degree comparable for a moment with that obtaining in the case 
of the Pastorals can hardly be asserted in the face of the evidence 
now forthcoming, and must be dismissed as a subjective im- 
pression in direct conflict with the objective facts. Under test 
after test the Pastorals are shown to be divided from the other 
epistles by a great gulf, to which the actual differences among 
these afford no sort of analogy. 

 (iii) But, * we do not demand that Shakespeare's Sonnets or 
Cymbelme should exhibit a certain percentage of Hamlet 
words. . . . Antecedently we should not expect that an author's 
favourite expressions would be distributed over the pages of his 
book like the spots on a wall-paper pattern.' ^ 

Still, if the authorship of a play supposed to be Shakespeare's 
were open to very serious doubts on other grounds, those doubts 
would hardly be allayed by the discovery that it contained an 
extraordinarily low percentage of the commonest and most 
characteristic Shakespearean terms, and a correspondingly high 
percentage of words found in no Elizabethan playwright, but 
current among those of the late seventeenth century.^ And 
having observed carefully the actual extent and the actual limits 
of variation among all the other known writings of an author, 
over a long period of years, we do certainly look for some sort 
of approximation to his normal line of development, in a work 
purporting to come from the same author after a brief interval. 

(iv) A 'development' there is indeed from i Thess. to Phil., 
not quite mechanical in its regularity, but real and natural, with 
the fluctuations which so often mark a natural process. But 
applied to a transition like that from Phil, to the Pastorals, this 
word, implying as it does a certain degree of orderly continuity, 
would seem to be a misnomer. 

* N. J. D. White, Expositor's G. T., 1910, p. 68. ^ See below, pp. 67 ff. 



48 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

(v) It is quite true that the Pastorals have a certain number of 
words in common with the epistles of the Roman imprisonment 
and with these only. The actual figure is 28, as against t6o 
shared exclusively with the group Rom., Cor., Gal., and 13 with 
I and 2 Thess. Allowing for the differences in length, we get an 
average of 1-5 per page of the Thessalonian epistles shared by 
the Pastorals with these exclusively, 2-i per page with the four 
Homologoumena, and only i-2 with the four prison-letters. 
They have thus rather less exclusively in common with the latest 
than with the earlier groups, which is hardly what the idea of 
development would have led us to expect, supposing them to 
have been written by Paul a few years after Philippians. 

(vi) On the same hypothesis 2 Tim. must, of course, be the 
last of the three ; and we should in that case have expected to find 
in this epistle still further progress than in i Tim. and Titus aivay 
from Paul's earlier manner. Instead we find that 1 Tim. stands 
much the nearest of the three to the other Paulines — a fact 
which agrees perfectly with the theory that this epistle contains 
much the largest amount of genuine Pauline matter. See 
Diagram III, p. 25. 

2. Circiimsta7ices. 

But, it is urged, 'circumstances alter cases', {a) The changed 
environment of the Apostle, further travels, fresh experiences, 
new acquaintances, would naturally lead to a further modification 
of vocabulary, &c., especially in one so ' sympathetic and open to 
influences from without'.^ 'Weariness, ill-health, gloomy pros- 
pects, and growing years and cares, might all be important factors 
in the case.' "^ The Apostle's lengthy sojourn in Rome might 
perhaps account for the number of Latinisms which make their 
appearance in these epistles.^ 

This line of explanation, like the last, is of course closed to 
those who believe that Paul wrote the Pastorals during the period 
recorded in Acts, i. e. the same period as the other epistles. 

But even if we assume a second imprisonment, and grant the 
abstract principle that new experiences beget new expressions, 
and that changed surroundings would tend to exercise a certain 
influence over the language of any impressionable writer, it still 

^ White, 1910, p. 59. 2 Shaw, 1904, p. 440. ' James, 1906, p. 148. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 49 

remains more than doubtful whether the facts before us can be 
adequately explained in this way. For — 

(i) the ten Paulines themselves were not all written under 
identical circumstances, nor was the life of the Apostle altogether 
monotonous during those eleven years. He had already passed 
through many vicissitudes, made many new friends, travelled far, 
knew bodily sickness and pain, mental distress and disappoint- 
ment, suffered many losses and hardships, cares and sorrows, trials 
and dangers, had spent at least two years as a prisoner in Rome, 
and had come to feel the burden of advancing age, before he 
wrote Phil. Yet the ten epistles show no such far-reaching 
changes among themselves. 

(ii) Assuming their Pauline authorship, the Pastorals must have 
been written under circumstances as different from one another as 
from those in which some of the others were composed, — and in fact 
more so. Almost the only circumstance common to the three, 
but foreign to the ten, would be found in Paul's added years — 
that is supposing, what is strongly denied, that he survived his 
first Roman imprisonment. But, even so, as Otto pointed out 
long ago, in reply to Guericke, it is not the usual result of old 
age to produce a new vocabulary. 

For the rest it must be asked, which of the circumstances now 
under consideration was really new to the Apostle? He was no 
stranger to most of these influences when he wrote 2 Cor. xi. 
1 2-30, but their effect upon his style and diction was then quite 
different. 

(iii) Some of the Latinisms {fieji^pdva, (f>aLX6vq^) occur in 
passages the Pauline authorship of which is not disputed. The 
residue may be explained by supposing, with Holtzmann ' and 
others, that Rome was the birthplace of these epistles. In any case 
Rome was not the only place in the world where an occasional 
Latin word would be quite natural and intelligible in a Greek 
composition. 

{b) Conditions within the Church, too, were different in various 
ways from those prevailing when Paul wrote his earlier epistles. 
We have to consider the possible influence of this upon his choice 
of words and general mode of expression. In particular there 
is the appearance of the False Teachers, and the necessity for 

' Holtzmann, PB., pp. 109, 271. 

239S £ 



50 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

choosing special terms to describe them and their novel theories, 
and to suit the new atmosphere of debate and acrimonious strife 
created by their presence.^ Moreover, the Church had itself 
developed, by the time these epistles were written, in organization, 
polity, discipline, liturgy, and practical Christianity. 

The specific circumstances here named are themselves among 
the principal grounds of objection against the Pauline authorship 
of these epistles. But the question whether their introduction 
within the lifetime of the Apostle is, or is not, in the nature 
of an anachronism, does not fall within the scope of the present 
linguistic argument. In any case, Paul was not now for the first 
time forced to breathe the heated atmosphere of doctrinal 
discussions, nor to deal with opposition on the part of false 
teachers coming in and leading weak minds astray. We do not 
find this particular type of linguistic phenomena in Galatians nor 
yet in Colossians. 

3. Subject-Matter. 

The same remarks apply in part to the suggestion that we 
should refer peculiarities of diction to the new subject-matter. 
Thus we have (i) a whole series of what have been described 
as technical terms belonging to {a) the heresies to be rejected 
[yeveaXoyta, yyooai?, ylrevScovvfjios), {b) the true doctrines to be 
inculcated (SiSaa-KuXia, TrapaOrJKrj, vyirji}, (c) the ecclesiastical 
rules to be enforced (yv/xpa^eiv, SiSuktikos, iinaKoirri, veocfiVTos), 
(d) the religious and' moral situation presupposed (/Se/^T^Xoy, 

The reasons for and against regarding precisely these matters 
as marks of a later age belong to another field of inquiry, about 
which the most fundamental differences of opinion remain. But 
there is no need to reserve our judgement on the present issue 
until those vexed questions of Church History have been settled. 
For, even supposing that the whole ecclesiastical situation might 
have developed in Paul's mind and experience along the lines, 
and to the extent, indicated in these epistles, — it still would not 
by any means follow that we should have here a satisfactory 
explanation of the varied, deep, and far-reaching contrast now 

' Wohlenberg, PB., 1906, pp. 55 ff. 

^ Jacquier, Histoire des livres du N. 7'., 1 903, p. 363. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 51 

demonstrated between the language of the Pastorals and that of 
the ten Paulines. 

The very wide range of subjects covered by the ten Paulines 
themselves has not, in their case, resulted in similar discrepancies. 

And it has been pointed out many times ^ that the vagueness 
and generality of many of these * technical terms ' is unlike Paul, 
who was accustomed to meet the errors of his day in a more 
thoroughgoing and concrete fashion, coming to closer grips with 
the fundamental ideas of his antagonists, and showing how and 
where they were wrong. It was not his way to content himself 
with disparaging epithets and labels to the extent that we find 
in these epistles. Many of these terms are wide enough and 
vague enough to have fitted equally well the disturbers of the 
churches of Galatia or of Colossae ; but they do not appear in 
Paul's letters to those communities. The residue of more precise 
and definite expressions coincides significantly with the termi- 
nology of second-century writers in characterizing the heresies, 
church-institutions, &c., of their day. 

(ii) Least of all would any change in subject-matter seem to 
account for that strange absence of more than a hundred Pauline 
particles, &c., or for those radical differences in grammar and 
style, to which reference has been made on pp. 34-44. 

Can this very disuse of particles, conjunctions, &c., be explained 
by referring to the absence of dialectic discussions, and by 
suggesting that the Pastorals consist mainly of instructions, dis- 
ciplinary rules, and regulations, rather than detailed arguments 
or expositions ? 

Hardly, for the Pauline prepositions, &c., missing from the 
Pastorals are not by any means confined to argumentative or 
keenly logical contexts. The absence, e. g., of dv, irapd with 
the accusative. Tore, re, e/caaroy, eri, i/xavroi^, Kayco, ovt€, avi^, &c., 
&c., does not so much as begin to be explained by any such 
considerations. 

(iii) A certain number of the unique words in the Pastorals 
must certainly be written off on the ground that their uniqueness 
is obviously quite accidental. Their presence is necessitated 
by the introduction of sundry matters of which the Apostle had 
no occasion to speak in his earlier letters, though he might 
^ e.g., by McGiffert, A. A., p. 402 ; Moffatt, /. M 71, p. 409. 

E a 



52 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

perfectly well have done so, had occasion required ; e. g. dycoyrj, 
dKaip(09, dvaXva-LS, ^iXTLOu, fidfi/irj, fxefx^pdya, (XTOfia^o?, (jiaiXofTj?, 
XaXKev?. 

But the number of these is strictly limited, and a certain num- 
ber of unique words under this heading must similarly be written 
off from each of the other epistles also, if the comparison is to 
be drawn fairly. Most of them occur, as it happens, in the admit- 
tedly genuine paragraphs. The elimination of the remainder 
would not materially lessen the mass of non-Pauline expressions. 

4. Amanuensis. 

We know that Paul did not write all, if he wrote any, of his earlier 
letters with his own hand, but dictated them to an amanuensis 
(Rom. xvi. 32 eyo) Tiprio^ 6 ypdyjra^ rrjv kiria-ToXi^y), only taking 
the pen to add a few words of personal greeting at the close 
(i Cor. xvi. 21, a Thess. iii. 17 f., Gal. vi. 11 ff.. Col. iv, 18). 

A prima facie explanation of the linguistic peculiarities of the 
Pastorals, which does not at the same time prejudice their 
apostolic authority, has been found in the suggestion that, in 
this case, the amanuensis may have been allowed more freedom 
than usual as to the precise form and wording, while faithfully 
reproducing the substance of the apostolic message. 

That the name of Luke should have been thought of in this 
connexion ^ was almost inevitable, in view of the fact that he 
alone was with Paul at the time when 2 Tim. iv. 11 was being 
written. 

Those who adopt this explanation bear witness as a rule ex- 
plicitly, as well as by the very fact that they find such a hypo- 
thesis necessary, to the reality and weight of the difficulties in 
the way of an unqualified belief in the direct Pauline authorship.^ 
At the same time they point out quite clearly that it must have 
been Luke if any one who filled this role.^ 

* H. A. Schott, Isagoge Historico-Critica in Libros Novi Foederis Sacros, 
1830, p. 325 : * vir quidam apostolicus, unus ex sodalibus Pauli (forsitan Lucas), 
ipsius Apostoli nomine et auctoritate has litteras exaravit'. 

* J. D. James, Gemtineness and Authorship of the P. E., 1906, pp. 144, 1 54 f. 
Robert Scott, Pauline Epistles, 1909: ' It is not for a moment imaginable 
that Paul . . . could have written these three moral charges . . ., and have 
written them in a new terminology ' (p. 350 f.). 

' James, p. 154 : ' " Only Luke is with me " — stares us on the written page '. 
Cf. Scott, p. 333, Liike is ' the one companion of Paul whom we know to have 
possessed the two qualifications of literary ability and Gentile birth'. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 53 

But as a real solution of our problem this hypothesis can 
hardly be said to pass the necessary tests. The phenomena 
before us are not by any means of such a nature that they can 
be accounted for by imagining a superimposition of the Lucan 
style and vocabulary upon the Pauline. The Hapax Legomena 
are of course as foreign to Luke as to Paul. The total absence 
of such particularly frequent and characteristic Pauline words as 
dSiKeco, -09, aKaOapro^, diroOvqaKOi, dvayKoi^Qi, dnoKaXvylrLS, -tttco, 
/SXeTTOi), yvoopi^oo, SLaOrJKT], evSvco, epyd^o/jiai, i^ovOiveco, evSoKiio, 
(vXoyeco, ^r]\o?, KaTapTi^oo, KevS?, KOLvcovta, oiKoSofiio), ovpavo^, 
6<p€iXiTr)9, nepia-creiicti, Trpdacrao, crravpos, o-co/za, I'/oy, vndp^oi, 
(f>o^iofj.ai, •)(^ap^C^H-(^t', ^pct^ does not become any more intelligible 
when we presuppose as the amanuensis a writer who in his own 
works uses every one of these words, some of them with great 
frequency. Still less does the Lucan hypothesis help us to 
understand the strange omission of Pauline particles, &c., seeing 
that Luke himself uses dV ^6 times, dyri ^, dpa 11, a)(pc 21, ye 
J^,Sl6 10, SiOTi 8, eyyv9 6, eKacrro? 16, kfiavrov 6, 'ijxnpoaOev 12 
iviKev 8, e^o) 20, e7r€i'3, eTreiSrj 5, eri 21, ecoy 30, ISov 79, Kdya> 12, 
vai 6, 01X01(09 II, OTTOV 7, oncos 22, ov 14, ov$€i9 6, ov)(i 21, 
ovK€Ti JyOvTe 22,7rdXiv 8,7rapd with accus. 22,7ra^7-a)? 4, 7^A7?^' 19, 
7r6(ro9 7, TTov; 7, aoy 7, a-vf 77, re 154, t6t€ ^6, axnrep 5, and 
eocrre 13 times. 

It is not easy to see how the co-operation of two such minds 
as Paul's and Luke's should have led to the introduction of 
so many terms utterly foreign to them both, and the omission 
of two such large and important series of words which they had 
both found indispensable. Nor can the stylistic divergencies of 
the Pastorals from the Pauline manner be fairly said to point 
towards the peculiar grace, literary charm, and finish so con- 
spicuous in the Lucan writings. 

It seems nearer the mark, therefore, to hold that, while the 
affinity between our author and the writer of the Third Gospel 
and of Acts is clear and indisputable, their identity would be 
quite incredible on linguistic grounds alone^ and cannot be 
accepted as a possible explanation of the facts with which we 
are now concerned. 



54 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

5. Recipients. 

The Pastorals are addressed to individuals, not to churches. 
May not this be the true explanation of their peculiarities as 
compared with the other Paulines ? 

Promising as this way of escape from our difficulties may seem 
at first sight, it is beset, from the start, with pitfalls for the 
unwary, and leads at last to a veritable morass of shifting 
speculations, where we are obliged to leap from one precarious 
hypothesis to another in the vain hope of reaching firmer ground. 

Stated in general terms, and without further qualification,^ it 
is met at once by the obvious and fatal objection that the Epistle 
to Philemon, which really is a private letter in a far fuller and 
truer sense than either of these, shows no trace of the special 
features now under consideration ; on the contrary, it keeps 
remarkably close to the normal Pauline type, and well inside its 
natural allowance of unique words. 

We must therefore retrace our steps and begin again, exercising 
greater care this time to avoid the mistake of putting more 
weight on the private character and destination of our epistles 
than it will carry. They are — shall we say — private communica- 
tions about matters concerning the Church as a whole, addressed 
to personal friends in their official capacity, thus differing on the 
one hand from Philemon, which is addressed to a private member 
on a purely private matter, and on the other hand from the 
other nine Paulines, which are addressed to churches ? By this 
necessary distinction the maximum distance is left between the 
Pastorals and the letters to churches, consistent with immunity 
from the awkward analogy of Philemon. But when we have thus 
succeeded in framing a formula which excludes all other Paulines, 
while it includes the Pastorals, we have still to show just how 
and why this explains the many and great differences already 
noted.2 



^ e.g. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, 1 874, p. 380. 

"^ Koelling (/ Tim. atif^s Nene untet'sucht u. ausgelegt, 1882-7, p. 24) 
regards this distinction as ' wholly central to the present field of investigation, 
and the key to their linguistic peculiarity '. Similarly Riiegg {Zur 
Echtheitsfrage der PB., 1898, p. 62 f.) : ' We are dealing here with an entirely 
new class of epistle to which we possess no analogue among the undisputed 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 55 

Can we say that the superior education of Timothy and Titus 
made it possible and natural for the Apostle to write to them 
in a literary style, and use a number of more or less technical 
terms, which would have been unsuitable in writing to churches, 
because unintelligible to the majority of simple and ignorant folk 
of which they were composed ? ^ 

This matter of the ' technical terms ' has partly been dealt with 
already (p. 50 f.), and partly falls outside our present inquiry. 
Meanwhile, regarding the theory of a ' linguistic dualism ' in Paul's 
epistles, analogous to that between Schleiermacher's beautiful 
letters to his wife and his sister, and his correspondence with 
scientific friends like Gass and de Wette on technical subjects, 
we have to inquire, does it meet the case ? 

Can it be maintained that the style and diction of the Pastorals 
bear evidence of being addressed and adapted to a more highly 
educated type of mind than, say, the Epistle to the Romans ? 
True, he tells the Corinthian brethren that he has been obliged 
to speak to them as to babes, and to feed them with milk suited 
to their spiritual {he does not say mental) capacity (i Cor. iii. i f.). 
But neither the ancient Church (2 Pet. iii. 15 f.) nor the modern 
has ever yet derived from these epistles to churches the impres- 
sion that their author was writing down to the mental level of 
ignorant and illiterate readers. 

On the other hand we must avoid putting too much stress on 
the superior educational qualifications of Timothy and Titus, and 
the personal, intimate, and confidential character of the letters 
addressed to them, or we shall soon find ourselves involved in 

Paulines. ... A writing made up of Pastoral instructions was bound to show 
an essentially different linguistic character'. 

* ' In Paul's letters to communities he had to take account of the fact that 
ov noXKol ao(f>oi, oi ttoXXoI dvvaroi, ktX., I Cor. i. 26.' The rank and file were 
' largely uneducated, slaves, &c.'. * In writing to them he needed to exercise 
the greatest care in the structure of sentences, and the utmost sobriety and 
detail {Ausjiihrlichkeii) in the development of his thoughts, and to avoid in 
his expressions, especially in his choice of words, everything which in any way 
went beyond the popular means of knowledge, circle of ideas, and range of 
diction ' (Koelling, p. 27). ' But in writing to Timothy, he was addressing a 
man who like himself had no mean scientific qualifications ' (p. 41 f.). ' Men 
with a literary education write in a different fashion to one another than they 
do to simple folk ' (p. 44). The great bulk of the Hapax Legojnefta in 2 Tim. 
are ' scientific termini ', and ' as such, it is thoroughly natural for them to 
appear in a letter whose author and recipient alike undoubtedly possessed the 
scientific qualification' (p. 150). 



S6 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

very serious difficulties with regard to the tone of these epistles, 
which now seems all the more strangely pedagogic.^ 

The problem is to find a way out of these difficulties without 
wholly sacrificing the private letter hypothesis as a satisfactory 
explanation of the linguistic peculiarities. A solution which has 
commended itself to some minds is that we should regard the 
Pastorals as ^^w/-private communications of which certain por- 
tions were intended for Timothy and Titus alone, while others 
were to be produced by them as their authority when issuing 
instructions to the Church at large.^ 

Presumably Titus i. 12 {KpTJrc? dd '^eva-rai, KUKa Q-qpia kt\.) 
would be one of the parts reserved by Titus for his own private 
information. However that may be, it is clear that the present 
hypothesis can only be maintained at the expense of the last. 
Communications which were intended to be used as a sort of 
credentials cannot at the same time have been meant for the eyes 
of Timothy and Titus alone. They are now shown to be private 
only in form, and the whole argument based on the superior 
education and scientific equipment of Timothy and Titus falls to 
the ground. We cannot possibly have it both ways. 

But now what of our new position ? In avoiding Scylla, we 
are drawn back inexorably into Charybdis. For we are left 
without any adequate explanation of those glaring linguistic 
discrepancies which the private letter theory recognizes and was 
designed to meet. 

It is inadequate, for instance, to suggest that, as i and 2 Thess . 
have an average of 5 Hapax Legomena to the chapter, Rom. 

^ Shaw, p. 442 : ' Timothy is addressed as an immature youth who needs 
very elementary lessons in life and duty. ... It also sounds strange that to 
him above all Paul should think it needful to make strong assertions regarding 
his apostleship and his truthfulness. In short he tells Timothy a great deal 
that he must often have told him before, and he tells it in rather a stern 
manner on the whole. ... It must be confessed that there is much in such 
objections that is very hard to explain, and sufficiently justifiable of doubt.' 

" Findlay, Appendix to the English Transl. of S abutter's St. Paul, p. 369 : 
' Why, it is asked, should he write to his old assistants and familiars, his 
" true children " in the Faith, with so much stiffness and formality, and 
such an air of authority ? . . . The answer lies partly in the fact that these 
epistles, especially i Tim. and Titus, are " open " or quasi-public letters, written 
with the Churches of Ephesus and Crete in view, and such as it would be 
suitable to read, in part at least, at their assemblies.' Cf. Dummelow's One 
Volvme Bible Commentary, 1909, pp. 992, 1006 : 'private correspondence, not 
strictly confidential.. . . The author is writing with his eye on the community.' 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 57 

nearly 7,Eph.-Col. 8, Phil. 10, and the Pastorals 13, 'the regular 
progression of the above figures marks them as belonging to one 
and the same series'.^ For the chapter is an artificial and an 
elastic standard of measurement, and its use for the present 
purpose would tend to obscure the state of things revealed 
in our Diagram I (p. 21). 

Nor can we recall any really convincing account of the Missing 
Particles from this point of view,^ nor one that does justice to the 
facts set forth in our table (p. 36 f.). 

Still less is the final verdict of scholarship likely to be influenced 
by any argument based on the use of our Saviour's name in the 
Pastorals,^ which omits to mention the very important fact that 
whereas Paul uses 'Irjo-ovs alone at least 38 times, and in every 
epistle except Philem., Xpiaro? alone and without the article 126 
times, and in every epistle except 2 Thess., and 6 Xpia-Tos 79 times, 
and in every epistle except Philem., the author of the Pastorals, 
according to Westcott and Hort's text, never once uses either 
'Irjarov? alone or Xpia-To^ alone, and Xpiaro^ alone only once, 
I Tim. v. II. If the reading 'Irjaov^ in 2 Tim. iv. 22 be correct 
(so W. H."* and v. Soden's text), this is the exception which proves 
the rule. For this verse is admittedly Pauline. 

6. Forgery. 

But may it not be that these very difficulties, which ofi"er such 
a stubborn resistance to all frontal attacks, may yet succumb to 
a flanking movement, or better still, an assault from the rear, and 
so prove to be ' not insuperable ' after all ? 

Why should it not be argued that such obvious and striking 
discrepancies, when set in the right light, tell rather in favour of the 
Pauline authorship than against it ? What forger would have 
dared to run such a risk of detection ? Who else but the Apostle 
himself could afford to indulge in such a patent departure from 
the normal and familiar style and diction of the Apostle? What 
could have been easier for a clever falsarins than to avoid every 
non-Pauline expression, and confine himself strictly to words and 

' Findlay, p. 354. 

' id., p. 359. He mentions/<7«r ! (Similarly J. D. James, p. 134.) 

^ id., p. 361. 



58 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

idioms for which a parallel could be produced from within the 
genuine epistles ? ^ 

Now the whole question of pseudonymity in ancient writings 
generally, and in the second century in particular, requires a 
chapter to itself, where the procedure, motives, ethic, and 
psychology of this very interesting and important literary 
method could be dealt with in more detail than is possible here.^ 
Meanwhile it is certain that those who deny the Pauline author- 
ship of the Pastorals do not as a rule use the terms ' forger ' and 
falsaritts in this connexion. Nor would they admit for one 
moment that these terms, with their distinct implication of moral 
depravity and of the deliberate will to deceive, represent the 
only alternative to the Pauline authorship of these epistles. 

But how should it ever have entered the head of any second- 
century Christian writer — even of a 'forger' of the deepest dye 
— to sift out from his original every little particle and preposi- 
tion, and to pepper his own composition with them, for the more 
thorough deception of his readers ? Would such a procedure 
really have been quite so easy in those days as has been 
suggested ? Without a concordance it would not be just the 
simplest task in the world even now. And what would have 
been the use of it? What second-century reader would ever 
have noticed such a point, or allowed it to influence him in the 
least ? We know that the absence of Pauline particles did not 
in fact prevent the acceptance of these epistles as Paul's by the 
Church towards the close of that century. It was not by such 
canons that the early Church determined the apostolic authority 
of any work, but by its practical value for edification, and its 
faithfulness to the apostolic teaching as then held and under- 

^ ' If the logical particles of the argumentative epistles are missing, this is 
in favour of authenticity rather than otherwise. Nothing would have been 
easier for a man steeped in Paulinism like our author, than to sprinkle his 
pages with catchwords of this kind' (Findlay, p. 359). 

* A clever falsarms would not have omitted such obvious marks of his 
master's style. A writer who could have reproduced the parenthetical 
sentences of St. Paul would not have failed in such a minor detail ' (James, 
p. 154). 

' For a forger would have been at pains to keep as closely as possible to 
the admitted style of the writer whose name he was fraudulently assuming ' 
(Bowen, Dates of the Pastoral Epistles, 1900, p. 6 f.). 

* In fact, the only man who '-can afford to differ largely from previous 
compositions is the author himself (Shaw, p. 439). 

2 See Moffatt, H. N. T. (1901), pp. 619 ff. ; /. N. T., pp. 40 ff., 415 ff. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 59 

stood. So far from its being ' obvious ', many centuries had 
to pass before this mark of the master's style could be recog- 
nized as such ; and even now it would certainly escape the 
notice of the vast majority of readers, unless it were pointed out 
to them. 

But the certain fact that a point of this kind lay right outside 
the mental scope and interests of early Christendom, makes it 
none the less valuable as a test for our present purpose. Indeed 
the very unconsciousness of the symptoms renders them all the 
more significant. This applies still more forcibly to the facts 
brought to light in our diagrams. 

7. Literary Analogies. 

If the sharp contrast between the language of the Pastorals and 
that of the ten Paulines cannot be denied, and if all attempts to 
explain it consistently with their Pauline authorship prove un- 
availing, can the position still be turned by referring to analogous 
variations among the works of any other writer ancient or 
modern ? 

The difficulty with so many of the ancients is that the true 
origin of their reputed works is wrapped in an obscurity as deep as, 
or deeper still than, that which we are now seeking to penetrate. 
So that it is a case of explaining ' ignotum per ignotius '. 

On the other hand, any modern writer is divided from Paul by 
so vast an abyss of time, so many incalculable changes resulting 
from the invention of printing (to name only one all-important 
factor), that, even supposing that any real resemblance were 
apparent, it would be largely nullified by the obvious differences 
between the two cases. 

A great majority of the analogies which have actually been 
suggested in this connexion are much too indefinite to affect 
in any way the issue before us, which is one of degree and of 
concrete detail. General observations about the liability of an 
author's style and diction to vary with his subject-matter, &c., 
coupled with vague allusions to Luther, Klopstock, Dante or 
any other versatile writer whose name happens to occur,^ are 
powerless against the great body of facts now specified. 

^ * Why should not a certain change and development in mode of expression 
and of writing have taken place in Paul, just as in others?' Wohlenberg, 



6o LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

For, as J. S. Mill showed long ago, the force and value of an 
argument from analogy may amount to anything or nothing 
{Logic, III. xx). Everything depends upon the precise extent 
and character of the resemblance upon which the inference is 
based, as compared ' first with the amount of ascertained differ- 
ence, and next with the extent of the unexplored regions of 
unascertained properties '. 

Considering the possibilities of such an inquiry, it may seem 
somewhat surprising that there should have been so few attempts 
to produce concrete examples of linguistic variations analogous 
to those which distinguish the Pastorals from all other Pauline 
epistles. But the labour involved is considerable, and in itself 
not very exhilarating. A reliable word-index is indispensable, 
and is only forthcoming for a very limited number of authors. 
It may have been partly the ^existence of such an index which 
led W. P. Workman to select Shakespeare as the subject of an 
experiment in this direction, which some have found reassuring 
{Expository Times, vol. vii, 1896, p. 418 f.). 

In this article Workman sets out ' to exhibit, with an approach 
to scientific accuracy, the real value or valuelessness of the 
numbers in question '. He proceeds to state the numbers of 
Hapax Legomeiia per page in the Pastorals and in the Paulines, 
and continues, ' It is no longer possible for any candid man to 
say that there is no case for investigation. These epistles are 
now seen to present twice as many unusual words as any other 
of Paul's, and three times as many as most.' 

Having indicated the 'unsatisfactory' nature of previous ex- 
planations, he now provides the ' true answer ' , which is twofold. 
' (i) The epistles stand roughly in the order of age, the latest 
coming first. The general tendency of a writer, as he advances in 
knowledge of a language, and mastery of its possibilities, is to use 
more unusual words and more involved constructions. ... (2) The 
number of unusual words in the writings of an author is a very 
variable quantity, and as a matter of fact, there is nothing 
to excite comment in the fact that one writing contains three 
times as many as another.' Then follows in tabular form a list 
of Shakespeare's plays, showing in each case the number of words 

Die Pastoralbriefe, 1906, p, 53, and instances Luther, Klopstock, Schiller, 
and Goethe. 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 6i 

per page not found in any other play nor in the poems — all 
based on the lists in the Irving edition. From these it appears 
that ' the frequency in Shakespeare varies from 3-4 {Julius 
Caesar) to 10-4 [Hamlet), a range almost exactly the same as in 
Paul where it varies from y6 to 13 '. 

' This striking fact seems (to Workman) to be almost fatal to 
the argument against authenticity as drawn from Hapax Lego- 
mena! And with this view quite a number of subsequent writers 
concur, e.g. James (1906), R. D. Shaw (1904).^ 

(i) The writers are indeed, as Shaw admits, * very dissimilar '. 
Apart from the fact that both were men of high genius, it 
would be difficult to name two authors more unlike, or two series 
of writings presenting a sharper contrast in form, length, purpose, 
subject-matter, and spirit, or produced under circumstances more 
remote. 

' But ', Shaw continues, ' he is not comparing Paul with Shake- 
speare. He is comparing Paul with Paul, and Shakespeare with 
Shakespeare. He shows that each is an illustration of his general 
principle.' 

Still, he is comparing a certain variation in ' Paul ' with what 
he regards as a similar variation in Shakespeare. And his 
method of drawing the comparison is open, as we shall show, to 
more than one fatal objection. 

(ii) But he has appealed to Shakespeare, unto Shakespeare let 
him go ! And first of all, that we may visualize the evidence on 
the strength of which he claims to have exhibited ' sufficiently 
the utter weakness of the argument ' (from Hapax Legotnena), let 
us turn to the diagrams, VII and VIII, on pp. 63 and 6'^, in which 
the Pauline and the Shakespearean variations, as indicated by his 
own figures, may be taken in at a glance. 

We observe, to begin with, that chronological development has 
little or nothing to do with the actual variations in the numbers 
of Shakespearean Hapax Legomena. The latest play stands 
lower than the earliest, and the play with the largest number 
stands next in order of time to that with the smallest number — 
not a very good illustration of the 'general tendency' alleged by 
Workman as ' surely beyond dispute ' ! 

But the two main points to be considered are {a) the maximum 
* The Pauline Epistles, p. 438 : ' legitimate and forcible '. 



< 

:z; 

O 

o 

< 
< 

UJ 
< 

<c 



> 

< 

Pi 

< 

5 



O o^ CO t>- vo lo 



C091 PIUIBH 

8091 epissjjjpuesniiojj^ 

logi ^e3T^!}{ 

90<5! (4i3q3ew 

noi — }S3rf"i3L 

i65i ITdAI'^'^ 

865! A'^'J^H 

1191 3|ei,iJ3iui^ 

c 0091 iqS!NM#'"X 

Sf 

^ 6/8o9i~'do90pueXijojuv 

3 

^ ^091 o\\ni,-^ 

g S/V09I WJ0i3J"5e3W 

.0 

■g S65i jeqXIPyXVW 

;i; 0191 snuepuff) 

B 
-§ 76S1 jflSiq^if^Jspii/v 

g 0191 3Ui|3qajX3 

■p 

^ 66S1 iiajiqrx^sv 

_^ 8091 su3mvJo uouJIJ, 

;^ "DOS 1 }3i|n( pue 09uioj[ 

CI ^6^1 uyof^Qi 

k 6/8091 sapuny 

*&■ 9/5651 m3jq53ifi|D^JiUjej, 

-g 665 1 jpuVOTiy, 

^ 665i opyqDow 

E65i UPJEtpia 

t;6Si iWlA'^u^H 

t,65i — SJQjja^/<p3uio3 

c6Si ind'IA^u^H 

£65i — 1 pJEcpia 

1191 IM'^u^H 

ti6£i !md,"IA'^"5H 

i6ii — -A /o 03U13HU33 Z 



1091* 



I 



cr^ 00 c^ O 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 



63 



limits of variation in each series, and (d) the nature of the 
intermediate stages. 

As regards the first (a), Shakespeare's ' range ', in Workman's 
sense of the word, and according to his own figures, is seen to 
fall short of Paul's in the ratio of 7 : 9-4 (assuming the Pauline 
authorship of the Pastorals). 

But we have been told that he ' is comparing Paul with Paul 
and Shakespeare with Shakespeare '. That is precisely what he 



D 


I . 


^ 


GRAM VIII 


PAULINE HAPAX LEGOMENA 


(ACCOT?DIN'G 70W0WMAN) 


Mambers oj coords per page c^ W.H. not ]ixjnd elsecDhere tn the 
Neu) Testament. 


,rt ITffiSS PHM GAL ITHESS1?0 ICO!? EPH 2C0RCOL PHP2TIMIT 


M-TI ,n! 


»5 

n 
























/ 




•3 


11 
















— 






! 


V 




11 


10 






















1 
1 






10 


9 
8 























1 
1 

1 






9 
8 


' ' 




















1 






7 




— 

















X 


1 1 






7 


6 
■5 




— 












/\ 


'^^ 


^ 








6 
5 


4 




^ 




= 
















 




4 


'i 


3-6 I 


[ 4 


1 4 


•2 45 4-6 49 6 5? 6-8 II 15 


H 



has not done. He has compared Shakespeare with Shakespeare 
and Paul with the whole body of N. T. writers ! To make his 
comparison what it is claimed to be, he ought to have given us 
the number of words per page in each Pauline which are not to 
be found in either of the others — including by all means for the 
sake of argument the Pastorals. These will be found in our 
Diag. II, line B B, p. 33. 

We now see (i) that assuming the Pauline authorship of the 
Pastorals, the Pauline * range ' amounts to no less than fourteen 



64 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

words per page, or exactly twice that of Shakespeare ; (2) that it 
does so simply and solely by virtue of one tremendous leap at 
the end accomplished in worn old age ; whereas (3) if we confine 
our attention to the other ten epistles (line A A), the Pauline 
'range' is 5'2, or less by i-8 than the Shakespearean, and the 
general trend of the two curves is remarkably similar. Finally, 
(4) by granting, as we have done, for the sake of the experiment, 
the very point at issue — the Pauline authorship of the three 
Pastorals — we have ruled out the very considerable number of 
non-Pauline words shared by each of them with one or both of 
its fellows. If these are taken into account, then the number 
per page of non-Pauline words in the Pastorals treated as a unit 
is 22-4. Or if, refusing to let them help one another, we take 
each separately on its merits, then Titus alone is found to have 
no less than 30-4 such words per page, and the Pauline * range ' 
rises to 23, or more than three times the Shakespearean / 

{b) As regards the second, which is really the crucial point (the 
nature of the intermediate stages), between the two extremes 
mentioned, the remaining thirty-five plays form an absolutely 
orderly and unbroken sequence. In no single instance is there a gap 
of more than one word per page, the average distance between one 
play and another being about 0-2, and our ' curve ' barely diverges 
from a straight line. Whereas the Pauline curve, after following 
for ten epistles a course very similar to the Shakespearean, on 
reaching the Pastorals, makes a sudden and violent leap up- 
wards from 6-8 to 11 and 13 (taking once more Workman's own 
figures), a phenomenon to which the Shakespearean line offers 
no sort of analogy. For, in the transition from the 3-4 of Jiilins 
Caesar to the 10-4 oi Hamlet, for fths of the way Shakespeare was 
only returning to the level (9-3) which he had already attained in 
King Henry IV, Pt. I. The increase on his own previous record 
was thus only i-i. Whereas Paul's transition from the 6-8 of Phil, 
to the II of 2 Tim. or the 13 of i Tim.-Titus starts from the 
highest, instead of the lowest, point he had ever touched, thus 
exceeding his previous record by a greater distance than he had 
covered during the whole period of his previous literary career. 
The contrast is, of course, here too, still further accentuated, if 
we take into account the necessary correction of Workman's 
figures indicated above (a). 



AND PAULINE AUTHORSHIP 6^ 

For these reasons the present writer is unable to regard the 
analogy from Shakespeare as being in any way detrimental, let 
alone ' fatal ', to the argument against the Pauline authorship of 
the Pastorals, as drawn from Hapax Legomena. At the same 
time he desires to make full acknowledgement of his own 
indebtedness to Mr. Workman for having actually pointed the 
way, by his very interesting and suggestive experiment, to those 
further statistical investigations which play so large a part in this 
Essay. 

8. Derivatives. 

Jacquier (1903, p. 362 f.) urges that many of the Hapax 
Legomena in the Pastorals are derivatives of Pauline words, and 
that most of the new compounds have their analogies in the 
other epistles. 

But this is an argument that cuts both ways, and cuts deeper 
against the conservative view. For if derivatives are to be taken 
into account — and it is quite right that they should be (due 
caution being observed) — then they must obviously betaken into 
account all round. In that case it will be found that the number 
of unique words in the other epistles also will be similarly, and 
in fact still more largely, reduced ; and the net result will be to 
leave the comparison more unfavourable than ever for the 
Pastorals. But furthermore the same consideration must be 
applied to the relation between the Pastorals and the Christian 
writers of the early second century. And the result will then be 
to reduce almost to the vanishing point those elements in the 
vocabulary of the Pastorals which cannot be shown to belong to 
the current phraseology of the period to which our criticism 
assigns them. See below pp. 79, 83 f 

9. Words found in the LXX. 

Jacquier (1. c.) thinks it important that many of the Hapax 
Legomena are found in the LXX and must therefore have been 
known to Paul. (So too Riiegg, 1898, p. 6^?) But the ' critical ' 
view does not rest on any contention that Paul was necessarily 
ignorant of all the words in question. Some words have a long 
life but a short vogue. As certain words current in the religious 

2396 F 



66 LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 

speech of one period tend to drop out, and are replaced by others, 
this does not imply that those words pass completely out of know- 
ledge, nor that these others have all been newly coined. And the 
fact that a given word, or group of words, is known and its 
meaning understood, does not at once prove that it is likely to 
be used, by a given author, or at a certain time. Nor can it be 
conceded as self-evident that Paul must have been familiar with 
every Greek word in the LXX and Apocrypha. 

10. Classical Words. 

The long list of expressions occurring in these epistles, but not 
elsewhere in the N. T., includes a considerable number of classical 
words. Can this be explained by the suggestion that Paul may 
have devoted some leisure hours during his second Roman im- 
prisonment to a study of the Classics ? 

Against this conjecture, and in favour of a different explanation, 
we have to weigh certain concrete facts, (i) Whatever Paul may 
have done during the sixties, some eminent Greek writers and 
teachers in the earlier years of the second century are known to 
have steeped themselves in the Classics. (2) The literature of 
that period shows a marked revival of classical diction. (3) The 
particular classical words now in question were demonstrably 
one and all in actual use during that period — which cannot be 
said, by a long way, of Paul's lifetime. See Chapter III and 
Appendix I, esp. 'Residue', pp. 83 f., 161 ff. 

On the other hand, more than a few of the unique words in the 
Pastorals, so far from being in any sense * classical ', belong 
definitely to the vocabulary of a later Hellenism. Several of 
them are actually mentioned by the Atticist Moeris in a list of 
Hellenist substitutes for the correct Attic of his classical models. 
They are used, as he puts it, not MrrticcS?, but '^EWrjVLKm, e.g. 
du8po(p6uo9 [Attic Lexicon, ed. Koch, 1830, p. 364), avOhr-q^ 
(P- 54), l^aOixo^ (90), Kvri6^Lv (215), /xa>//7; (237), ^€vo8ox^(o (248), 
TrapaOrjKT] (a86), mpUpyos (also Acts xvi. 19, p. 205), vSpoTroTuv 
(346). 



LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS, ETC. 67 



in. The Language of the Pastorals and of Paul 

COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

AND Apologists. 

It is, then, admitted on all hands that the language of the 
Pastorals, compared with that of the other Pauline epistles, has 
a very considerable number of strongly marked peculiarities, and 
that these are such, both in kind and in degree, as to require a 
good deal of explanation, if they are to be reconciled with the 
traditional view. And while various explanations have been 
forthcoming which satisfy not only their authors but also a very 
large and influential body of scholars, members of the 'critical' 
school still remain entirely unconvinced, and persist in maintain- 
ing that the facts are incompatible with the Pauline authorship 
of these epistles. The result is for the moment a deadlock, each 
side holding its ground in more or less strongly entrenched 
positions, but failing to dislodge the other. 

And yet both opinions cannot be right. One must be in the 
main true, and the other false. Either Paul wrote these epistles 
in substantially their present form, or else he did not. If they 
were really written during the first half of the second century by 
some ardent Paulinist, using and quoting largely from our ten 
Paulines, let his motives and abilities have been what they may^, 
we should expect his work to have retained some mark of its 
true origin, and to yield up its secret sooner or later to persistent 
research and accurate observation. Some fresh body of evidence, 
emerging as the result of inquiries pushed further than before in 
some particular direction, may reasonably be expected at any 
moment to settle the matter once for all, one way or the other, 
in the minds of all who know the facts and desire only the truth 
whatever it may be. We should expect, for instance, to find our 
second-century Paulinist falling back unconsciously from time to 
time into the speech, as well as the ideas, of his own time. He 
could say much, but not all, that he had to say, in the ipsissima 
verba of his master. 

Does our author in his choice of words, when diverging from 
the known phraseology of Paul, show such a marked affinity or 
identity of expression with those Christian writers who would on 

F 2 



68 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

the ' critical ' theory be his contemporaries, as would seem natural 
on that theory, but highly improbable on the traditional hypo- 
thesis ? Or does he not ? That is a question of fact which has 
never yet been dealt with in any thoroughgoing fashion. Yet it 
is vital to the whole issue before us. And it can be answered on 
a scale, and with a degree of scientific accuracy hitherto out of 
the question, with the help of E. J. Goodspeed's excellent Index 
Patristiciis (Leipzic, 1907) and Ind£x Apologeticus (19 12). We 
proceed therefore to supplement our comparison of the two 
vocabularies, Pauline and Pastoral, by a comparison of both with 
this tertiitm qiiid—Xhe. vocabulary of the Apostolic Fathers and 
Apologists. We take primarily the former, as covering approxi- 
mately the period of fifty years A. D. 95-145 ; in the second place 
the latter group as showing the trend of Christian diction during 
the next thirty years, say A. D. 140-170. 

It will be useful to bear in mind from the outset the relative 
bulk of the documents in question. The text of the Apostolic 
Fathers occupies some 200 pages in Lightfoot's smaller edition. 
The text of the N. T. fills 516, the ten Paulines 105, the Pastorals 
13I, and the other books of the N. T. say 395 pages of approxi- 
mately the same length in Westcott and Hort. So the length 
of the Apostolic Fathers is rather less than twice that of the 
Paulines, and just two-fifths that of the entire N. T. The vocabu- 
lary of the Apostolic Fathers comprises some 4,020 words other 
than proper names, as compared with 2,177 in Paul and 848 in 
the Pastorals. The length of the Apologists is rather more than 
three-fifths of the N. T., and their vocabulary still larger than 
that of the Apostolic Fathers. 

I. Of the 175 Hapax Legomena in the Pastorals no less than 
61 occur in the Apostolic Fathers, and 61 in the Apologists, 
including 32 which are not in the Apostolic Fathers, making 
a total of 93. See Appendix I, A i, p. 137 f. In the great majority 
of cases these appear not in any sense as possible quotations from 
the Pastorals, but in a distinct context of their own, proving 
that they did in fact belong to the current speech of the Church 
and to the working vocabulary of Christian writers and thinkers 
in this period. 

The Pastorals share with the Apostolic Fathers from 4-4 words 
per page (i Tim.) to 7-1 (Titus) which are foreign to the rest of 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 



69 



the N. T. ; the Paulines, from r (Rom.) to 2-4 (Philem.), the majo- 
rity having less than 1-5 per page. See Diagram IX, B. 

With the Apostolic Fathers or Apologists, or both, the 
Pastorals share from 7-5 (a Tim.) to 8-6 per page (Titus) ; the 
Paulines, from i-6 (Eph.) to 3-2 (Phil), with the rest under 2-5 
per page. See Diagram IX, A. 

These words are distributed over the whole body of writings 



DIAGRAM IX 



Namberqf cuords,p€rp35''e,notfoaDd elsecohcre in the Necju Testament, bet ^und 
A.in the Ap.Fathers. or in the Apologists,- B.in the Apostolic fathers. 

EPH ITH KO GAL COL 2C0R K0R2TH FKM PHP ITl 2TI TIT 



























/ 


A 






















i 
/ 


^^ 


/ 


B 


























/ 
























/ 
I 
( 


/ 


f 
























/ 
\ 


/ 
























J 


1 I 
















^^ 






N, 


y 


^ 


r 












« 






^ 


.^ 


 — . 




^ 


/^ 













A 1-6 18 1-9 I-g 22 22 2S 17 24 3-2 7-9 7-5 8-6 
B M M 1 1-3 1-3 1-2 1-4 1-7 2-4 2-3 44 56 7-i 



before us, without exception ; even the brief fragments of Papias, 
Melito, and Dionysius of Corinth adding their small quota to 
the general mass of evidence. Clement of Rome has 21,2 Clem. 
7, Ignatius 13, Poly carp 6, the Martyrdom of Polycarp 4, the 
Didache 3, Barnabas 4, Hermas 21, the Ep. ad Diogiictiim 7, 
Papias 1, Aristeides i, Tatian 19, Justin 40, Athenagoras 22, 
Melito 2, and Dionysius of Corinth 2. The lists are given in 
our Appendix I, E, pp. 150 fif. Twenty-nine occur in both groups. 
If, in a number of instances, the word in question appears 
seldom, or only once, the same is true to a still greater extent of 
the Pauline Hapax Legomena. On the other hand we find more 
than a few of the Pastoral Hapax Legomena recurring again and 
again in one writer after another. Thus e. g. ayvda appears in 
I Clem., Ign., Pip., and Herm. — a dozen times ; eVrei/^iy 18 times, 
in I Clem., 2 Clem., Herm., and Jus.; d'AXcoy 15 times, in Herm., 



70 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

Ta., Jus., Ath. ; euSvyco 41, in i Clem., Barn., Ign,, Herm., Jus.; 
deocrelSeia 13, in 2 Clem., Dgn., Ta., Jus., Ath. ; Trpay/jLareia 13, 
in Herm., Ta., Ath. ; ^iXapyvpLa 7, in 2 Clem., Pip., Ta. ; acorripLos 
18, in I Clem., Dgn., Jus.; (ppouri^oj 11, in Ign., Jus. ; xp^ycri/xoy 
9, in Ign., Herm., Jus., Ta. ; fxrjSeTroTe 7, in Mar., Barn , Herm., 
Jus. ; dvocTLos 7, in i Clem., Jus., Ath. ; dtdyo) 7, in Ign., Jus , 
Ath. ; TTpoyovos 7, in Mel., Jus., Ath. ; aefiuoTJ]? 10, in i Clem., 
Herm., Ta. ; a-axppcou 12, in i Clem., Ta., Jus., Ath.; cocpeXi/xos 
5, in I Clem., Herm , Ta., Jus. 

The author of the Pastorals does speak the language of the 
Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, while diverging from that of 
other N. T. writers, to a degree wholly without parallel in the 
genuine Paulines. 

3. But we have seen that, in addition to these Hapax Lego- 
meiia, he uses a large number of words which, while they occur 
in other books of the N. T. (i. e. in Christian writings of the 
forty years or so following the death of Paul), are foreign to the 
working vocabulary of the Apostle, in so far as this is known to 
us from the ten surviving epistles. 

Out of 131 such words, 100 occur in the Apostolic Fathers, 
95 in the Apologists, 118 in one or the other, and 77 in both. 
See Appendix I, a 2, p. 138 f. 

I Clem, has 42 of these, 2 Clem. 21, Ignatius 26, Polycarp 14, 
the Martyrdom of Polycarp 18, the Didache 18, Barnabas 24, 
Hermas 54, the Ep. ad Diognetum 20, the fragments from Papias 3. 

Aristeides has 6, Tatian 42, Justin 76, Athenagoras '^J, and 
Melito (fragments in Eusebius) 3. See Appendix I, E, pp. 150 ff. 

Combining these results with those in the last paragraph, we 
see that the Pastorals share with the Apostolic Fathers 161 words 
which do not appear in the Pauline epistles, with the Apologists 156, 
with both groups 106, and with one or the other no fewer than 21 t. 

Each of the Pauline epistles has also naturally a certain 
number of words which do not appear elsewhere in the ten 
epistles, but do appear in one or both of the second-century 
groups. But whereas the Pastorals share with the Apostolic 
Fathers from 13-6 to 18-7 such words per page, the Paulines 
share from 4 to 7. See Diagram X, B, p. 71. So once again we find 
the ten Paulines forming a close, gradual, and orderly sequence 
among themselves. Once again the Pastorals show a violent 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 



71 



break away from that sequence. Only now, to the negative 
observation that the words in question were missing from the 
other Paulines, we have added the positive fact that they are 
present, some of them very frequently, in the pages of those 
Christian teachers who were, on our theory, the contemporaries 





D I AG RAM X 


Number o| tuords. per pa^e, not tistcuhere in the ten Paulines, but A, in the Ap.Fstbtrs, 
or In tbe Apoio^iits, B In the Ap.FaLbers. 

ITH COL 2™ PHM EPH GAL RO aCOR ICOR PHP 2T! ITl T!T 


21 

20 

19 
!8 

17 
16 

^ 

12 
II 
10 

9 

8 
7 
6 

5 

4 




























A 


ai 

2C 

19 
18 

17 
16 

15 

14 

13 
12 
II 
10 

9 
8 
7 
6 

5 
4 
















































































y 




B 






















1 




























1 

1 




























1 
1 
1 




























/ 
1 
1 




























1 




























! / 




























1/ 
























































1/ 


























^ 


( 1 

1 
/ 


















_ 


^ 


-^ 






' 












^^ 




y 








y 


y^ 










A 


^ 


f/ 


— ~- 




"^ 


"^ 




^ 












B 


-s= 


/ 
























^- 


I 57 6-5 6-4 71 72 75 79 8-2 87 18 l8-6 lli. 
4 A3 5-7 5-6 59 5-7 56 5-8 6y 7 139 13 & 187 



of this author, but on the traditional view, were writing from 
30 to 80 years after his death. 

If the validity and significance of this result needs any further 
confirmation, it seems to find it in the entirely similar result of 
our parallel experiment with the Apologists. The Pastorals 
share with this second group of writers from \y^ to 16-5 non- 



73 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 



Pauline words per page ; while the corresponding figures for the 
ten Paulines range from 4-2 to 6-6 per page. See Diagram XI, C. 
In the same Diagram, line D, we show that the Pastorals have 
in common with dot/i these second-century groups from 9-2 to 
13-9 per page, the Paulines from 2-8 to 4-9. Finally with one 
or the other of these groups the Pastorals share from 18 to 21 -4 
per page, the Paulines from 5-1 to 8-7. Diagram X, A, p. 71. 



D I AG RAM XI 


Namber 0/ cuords.perpa^, not elsecubere in the Un Paulines, but found 
Cin Lhe Apologists, D, both in the Ap. Fathers and in the Apolo^sts. 

COL ITH PHM 2TH BPH PHP 2C0B RO GAL ICOll 211 ITl TIT 




16 

H 

'3 
IQ, 

n 
10 

9 

8 

7 
6 

5 

4 
3 


























/ 


c 


16 

15 

14 
13 

II 
10 

9 
8 

7 
6 

5 

4 
3 

1 


























/ 


























/ 


/ 


























/ 


i 


D 






















1 

1 
f 




/ 
























/ 
1 




/ 
























1 

1 




/ 
























1 
1 
1 


^ 


























i 




























! 




















^_^ 








1 

I 






















y 










1 








C 






^ 




. 


, 


^ 
















^ 


y 
























D 


^^ 


























^ 




2. 44 48 5 5-3 6 63 6-3 63 6-6 .13-3 HS 165 
18 3-3 4 4-3 41 43 41 A-5 4-8 4-9 92 95 139 



This contrast between Pastorals and individual Paulines is still 
further accentuated, if we take into account the frequency with 
which the words in question recur in these later books. 

We have shown (Appendix I, E, pp. 150 ff.)that Clement of Rome 
uses in common with the Pastorals 6;^ words never so far as we 
know employed by Paul, 2 Clem. 28, Ignatius 39, Polycarp 20, the 
Martyrdom of Polycarp 22, the Didache 21, Barnabas 28, Hermas 
75, the Ep. ad Diognetum 27, and the fragments from Papias 4 ; 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 73 

while Aristeides has 7, Tatian 61, Justin 116, Athenagoras 59, 
and the fragments from Melito 5. 

The corresponding lists and numbers for the books of the N. T. 
are given in Appendix I, D, p. 148 f., as follows :— Matt, has in 
common with the Pastorals 34 non- Pauline words, Mark 32, 
Luke 56, John 25, Acts 60 (including 32 which are also in Luke), 
Heb. 39, I Pet. 17, 2 Pet. 18 (that is more than any other N. T. 
book, in proportion to its length), Jas. 15, the Johannine epistles 
8, Jude 8, and Rev. 16. 

Thus I Clement, Hermas, and Justin have each a larger number 
of such words than any N. T. book ; Tatian and Athenagoras 
have as many as Acts and Luke, which have much the largest 
number in the N. T., and the total in the Apostolic Fathers 
exceeds that in the whole body of non-Pauline N. T. books by 
30 (or 22-9 per cent.) ; while the total in the Apostolic Fathers 
and Apologists combined exceeds that in the N. T. books by 80 
(or 6i-i per cent.). Yet the entire bulk of the Apostolic Fathers 
(200 pages in Lightfoot) is rather more than half that of these 
non-Pauline books of the N. T. (say, 395 pages). In proportion 
to their length, the Apostolic Fathers have more than twice as 
many non-Pauline words in common with the Pastorals as have 
the other books of the N. T. (The ratio is as 127 to 52.) 

But the outstanding fact here is that one word in every four 
throughout the Pastorals, 211 out of 848, while foreign so far as 
we know to the vocabulary of Paul, is now proved to form part 
of the working vocabulary of Christian writers between the years 
A. D. 95 and 170 — including many words which recur with some 
frequency in these writers (e. g. dpviofxai, Sea-iroTrjs, iixre/S^ia, 
fivOos, napaireojiai, dxpiXijio^ — all of which are found in all three 
Pastorals). 

It does not seem possible to regard any one of the series of 
facts adduced in this section as merely accidental — still less the 
whole number. 

3. But now what of the converse relation? In what numbers 
and in what proportions do the Pastorals share with the other 
Paulines words foreign to the vocabulary of these second-century 
writers? The total number is 18, of which 7 are to be found 
elsewhere in the N. T., viz. *(dXva-L9, evayyeXLa-T-q^, -rrapa^'eLixd^oi), 
di^vnoKpiTos, neairris, *6i^€i8L(rfj.69, *0i//6<o. There remain ii 



74 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

shared exclusively with Paul, viz. 6 in i Tim. ^dXodoi, pavayeoD, 
oSvvrj^ npoKOTri], arpaTeia, v^piarrj^, 4 in 2 Tim. drrropyos, 
fx6p(f)a)(n?, (o"7ret'<5o/zai), ^acopevco, I in Titus aTrorofxco?. 

Not one of these occurs in Paul himself more than twice, and 
only 3 more than once, 4 (marked by *) occur in his epistles only 
as part of quotations from the LXX, and 4 (in brackets) occur in 
the Pastorals in verses which are admittedly genuine. 

4. Of the 50 words found in Paul and in the Pastorals, but 
not elsewhere in the N. T., 33 occur also in the Apostolic Fathers, 
26 in the Apologists, 20 in both second-century groups, and 39 
in one or the other. 

Of the 492 common to Paul, the Pastorals and other N, T. 
books, 470 are in the Apostolic Fathers, 459 in the Apologists, 
444 in both, and 485 in one or the other. 

Of the 106 words found in all three Pastorals, 97 are also in 
Paul, 102 in both Fathers and Apologists, and 105 in one or 
other of these second-century groups. And the remaining word, 
vyiaii^co, occurs in non-Christian writers of this period, e. g. Lucian, 
in a similar figurative sense to that which it bears in the Pastorals. 
See Appendix I, 'Residue,' p. 16.5 (7). 

Of 542 words common to Paul and the Pastorals, 503 or 92-8 
per cent, are in the Apostolic Fathers also, 485 or 89-5 per cent, 
in the Apologists, and 524 or 96-7 per cent, in one or the other. 

Of Paul's 2,177 words, 1,543 or 70-9 per cent, are in the Apostolic 
Fathers. Of the Pastorals' 848 words, 664 or 78-3 per cent, are 
in the Apostolic P^athers. 

5. We have seen that 634 words used by Paul in his ten 
epistles have disappeared entirely from the current speech of 
second-century Christendom, as represented by the writings of 
the Apostolic Fathers. If we ask how many of these same words 
are conspicuous by their absence from the Pastorals, the answer 
is, no less than 595 or 92-3 per cent. One hundred and thirty- 
two occur in more than one Pauline epistle, and of these 123 
are wanting in the Pastorals also. See Appendix I, F, pp. 153 ff. 

Among these are included seventy-three words all found in more 
than one Pauline epistle, but never once in the Apostolic P'athers, 
nor in the Apologists. Seventy-two of these are wanting in the 
Pastorals also. Sixteen occur in three epistles — SoKifi-q, ei/Sei^i^, 
iTrLJSapicD, €va)(^r]jx6uci}?, KaraXXdaaco, jx^racryriixarL^cii, avuaL')(^p.d- 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 75 

Acoro?, vloOeaia, (f)tXoTifieo/xai. (none of which occur elsewhere in the 
N. T.), and dyddefia, d(nraa/j.6s, ^KSiK-qon^, iravovpyia, TrcpnroirjcrL?, 
Trpoepco, 'ivL, 3 in 4 epistles — dTreK8i\ofj.aL, evSoKia, mpiacroTipco?, 
I in 6 epistles — aTrJKco, and i in 7 epistles — avuepyos. 

In view of the linguistic affinity already noted between the 
Pastorals and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the question 
is worth asking, whether or not the latter show a corresponding 
tendency to dispense with that same series of Pauline particles, 
&c., on the absence of which from the Pastorals so much stress 
has been laid in these pages. 

The answer is that while none of them exhibits this tendency 
on quite the same scale as our author, it is nevertheless in varying 
degrees quite unmistakably present among them all. 

Of the ' missing particles, &c. ' mentioned on p. 36 f., the follow- 
ing are entirely absent from the Apostolic Fathers also ; 
SioTT^p, fjTOi, i'Se, firJTLye, vq, nrjXiKOS, vnevavTiOS, vnepdvco, 
vTTepXiap, oxxTrepeL ecpdjra^, KaOo, ^levovvye, ov, o/zcoy, rdya^ 
TOvvavTLov, vTrepeKTrepLaaov. ei/L, ocpeXop, ttXtjv. p-ijircoi. Only 
once altogether in the Apostolic Fathers, we find Sevpo, e^avrfj?, 
rjyiKa, fjLTJTTCo. SL9,r}XcK0^, KaTei'doniov. eUrj, ei'Trep, d)(pi. Most of 
these, it is true, occur but seldom in Paul himself. But this 
cannot be said of e. g. e/cacrroy, which occurs 42 times and in 
9 epistles, but not at all in the Didache, once each in Polycarp 
(in a quotation), and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, twice in 
Ignatius and in 2 Clem. ; nor of avv (38 times in 8 Paulines), 
which our author seems to go out of his way to avoid as a 
preposition, though he uses it frequently as a prefix.^ It occurs 
once each in i Clem., Polycarp, and the £p. ad Diogiietum, and 
not at all in 2 Clem., the Didache, Barnabas, nor even in Hermas. 
With these writers too it might almost be said to have dropped 
out of use in favour of ii^rd, as a preposition, though still (as in 
the Pastorals) very common as a prefix. eiVe occurs 6-^ times 
in Paul, and in 8 epistles, but not at all in i Clem., 2 Clem., 
Barn., Mart., Did., and only once each, in its double form, in 
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas. e/x6y (23 times in 8 epistles) 

' avvmveOavofifv 2 Tim. ii. 1 1 for aTr(6avoyi(v avv Rom. vi. 8 ; aa-TrdCovTai ae ol 
fxer efj-ov irdfTts Titus iii. 15 for dcnrd^ovTm ifxas 01 avv €fj.o\ ndvTfS Phil. IV. 21 ; 
fxeru Tcov €7riKoXovyuf rtov rov Kvpiov 2 Tim. ii. 20 for <jvv Totj {TriKtiXov/xti'oif to 
oiOfxa Tuv nvpiov I Cor. J. 2. 



76 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

is wanting in 2 Clem., Barn.,- Pip., Mar., Did.; and in i Clem, it 
appears in one passage only, repeated there half a dozen times, 
but all in quotation. Slo (27 times in 8 epistles) is found neither 
in 2 Clem., nor in Mar., nor in Did., nor yet in Hermas, and 
only once in Dgn. and Ignatius, axxre (39 in 7) is not in 
Polycarp, nor in Dgn., nor in the Didache, and only once in 
Ignatius. Kciyco (27/7) is missing in Pip., Did., Dgn., and occurs 
once each in 2 Clem., Mar., Barn. ; twice in i Clem., but in quota- 
tions. €Tt (16/'/) is missing in Pip., Mar., Did. ye (13/7) is not in 
2 Clem., Ign., Pip., Mar., Did. dpa (27/7) is not in Pip., Mar., 
Did., Dgn — and once in i Clem, yvui {18/6) is not in Barn., 
Ign., Pip., Mar., Herm., Did., Dgn. oVo)? (9/6) is not in Barn., 
Pip., Mar., Herm., Dgn. cfiavrov (14/6) is not in i Clem., 
2 Clem., Mar., Did., Dgn. axr-rrep (14/5) is not in 2 Clem., Pip., 
Mar. ovK€Ti (15/5) is not in i Clem., Did., Pip., Mar., Dgn. 
d)(pi (14/5) is not in i Clem., 2 Clem., Barn., Ign., Pip., Mar., 
Did., Dgn. ov^i (18/4) is not in 2 Clem., Pip., Mar., Dgn. 
KaOdn^p (16/4) is not in i Clem., 2 Clem., Barn., Did., Ign., Pip., 
Mar., Herm. 

The conclusion which we can hardly help drawing from these 
facts, is that a marked tendency to drop a considerable number of 
the Pauline particles, prepositions, &c., is shared by our author 
with the Christian writers of the early second-century, and forms 
one more link between him and them ; while it is carried by him 
.so much further than by any of them as to constitute a distinct 
idiosyncrasy of his style and diction. 

Comparatively scanty as is our author's equipment in words of 
this class, it still includes several which lie outside the Pauline 
vocabulary, but inside that of the early second-century writers. 
We find firjSiTTOTe 2 Tim. iii. 7, nowhere else in the N. T., but in 
the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Hermas (several times), and Justin ; 
d'XAcoy I Tim. v 25, another Hapax Legonienon, very common 
in Hermas, and several times also in Justin, Tatian, and Athena- 
goras ; p.kvToi 2 Tim. ii. 19, and in the Catholic Epistles, Papias, 
Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras ; firfTroTe 2 Tim. ii. 25, Gospels, 
Acts, Heb,, I Clem., Barn., Ign., Did., Herm., and Justin ; 8l' fji/ 
aiTiap 2 Tim. i. 6, 12, Titus i. 13, Luke, Acts, Heb , cf. 8id 
TavT7]v TTjv aiTLav Heb., i and 2 Clem., Herm. (alria not in Paul). 

But, it may be urged, the Pastorals have a considerable number 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 77 

of such words — particles, &c. — in common with Paul, That is 
true. The actual number is 77. They are in fact the irreducible 
minimum without which it would be difficult to compose a 
telegram, and impossible to write a book or letter. The great 
majority of them occur not only in Paul, but also in every book 
of the N. T., and with barely an exception these 77 words are 
found both in the Apostolic Fathers and in the Apologists, 

6. The entire vocabulary of the Pastorals has 542 words in 
common with Paul, 623 with the other books of the N. T., 664 
with the Apostolic Fathers, 641 with the Apologists, 673 with 
the entire N. T. including Paul, and 735 with the Apostolic 
Fathers and Apologists combined. We may summarize the 
totals shared by these epistles with the other groups of early 
Christian writings. 



Pasto- 
rals. 


Paul. 


0. N. T.i 


Apos. 
Fath. 


Apolo- 
gists. 


Both A. F. 
and Apgts. 


Either A. F. 
or Apgts. 


N. TJ 


A I 175 








61 


61 


. 29 


93 





A2 131 





131 


100 


95 


77 


118 


131 


B I 50 


50 





33 


26 


20 


39 


50 


B 2 492 


492 


492 


470 


459 


444 


485 


492 


Total 848 


542 


623 


664 


641 


570 


735 


673 


Pages 


105 


395 


200 


318 




518 


503 



The Pastorals share with the — 

Ap. Fathers, but not with Paul 161, with Paul but not with Ap. Fathers 39 

Apologists „ „ . 156, „ „ Apologists 57 

Both 3 „ „ 106, „ „ Both' 78 

Either* „ ,, 211, „ ,, Either 18 

Either „ N.T. 93, with N. T. „ Either 31 

If now, for the purpose of our comparison, we choose to leave 
out of account the fragments of Aristeides, Quadratus, and 
Melito, and confine our attention, in the case of the Apologists, 
to the Dialogite and Apologies of Justin, the Or. ad Graecos of 
Tatian, and the Supplicatio of Athenagoras, we have in these 
and the Apostolic Fathers together a volume of about the same 
length as the N. T. — and the above figures will not be materially 



* O. N. T., i. e. other books of the N. T., not counting Paul. 

* N. T., i.e. whole N.T. including Paul. 

' i. e. both with the Apostolic Fathers and also with the Apologists. 

* i. e. either with the Apostolic Fathers or with the Apologists. 



78 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

altered. A reduction of one word only ^ representing what is 
shared by the Pastorals with the fragments in question exclusively. 
Here then are two volumes of about the same size, one comprising 
the Christian writings of the first two generations, say, the second 
half of the first century, including the ten epistles of Paul 
himself — the other, the Christian writings of the third and fourth 
generations, from A. D. 95 to 170. And the significant fact is, 
that the vocabulary of the Pastorals has actually sixty-one words 
more in common with the later than with the earlier group — a 
truly amazing circumstance, if Paul wrote them. 

Again, taking the three groups of post-Pauline Christian 
writings, (a) the non-Pauline books of the N. T., (d) the Apostolic 
Fathers, (c) the Apologists, we find that (a) is nearly four times, 
(d) nearly twice, and (c) three times the length of the ten Paulines. 
Now (a), which is thus much the largest of the three groups, and 
stands nearest in time to Paul, has the smallest number of words 
in common with the Pastorals: whereas (d) which is decidedly 
the smallest of the three, but coincides with the period to which our 
criticism assigns the Pastorals, has in common with them easily 
the largest number of words — another circumstance difficult to 
explain on the traditional hypothesis. 

Further, of the individual books contained in (a) it is with 
those which, on the ' critical ' view at least, are dated last, towards 
the end of the first century, and after, that our epistles show 
much the closest affinity — especially the Lucan writings and 
2 Pet. See Appendix I, D, p. 148 f. 

If therefore the Pauline authorship of our epistles is still to be 
maintained, some explanation has to- be produced for the curious 
fact that the other works not only of the same period, but of the 
same author, have considerably less in common with the epistles 
to Timothy and Titus than have those of the next three genera- 
tions, and that too, in a degree which increases steadily as time 
goes on, till a climax is reached in the writings of the next 
generation but one after the death of their supposed author. 

While we ransack the literature of the first century in vain for 
many of the characteristic expressions used by this author, we 
find most of them in the Greek literature of the first half of the 
second century. To find the rest, all that is necessary (as we 

^ iniTT^rjCTa-a), Melito. 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 79 

shall show in full detail presently), is to extend our researches to 
a point still farther away, by twenty years, from Paul's lifetime — 
1. e. to the year A.D. 170. 

7. Of the remaining T13 words in the Pastorals which are not 
to be found in Goodspeed's Indices Patristiciis et Apologeticus, 
we have at least the cognates of fully the half, e. g : 

If not d8r]X6rr]9,'we have dSriXo^ in i Clem, and Ath. 

„ dno^XrjTos, we have dno^dXXco in i Clem., Herm., and 

diro^oXri Ta. 
„ d-rroO-qa-aupi^o), we have O-ija-avpi^oo Jus., and d-rroQrjK-q 

Herm., Jus. 
ypawSrj^, we have ypatSio^ Ath., cf. ypaoXoyia Ta. 
„ yv^vaata, we have yvfivd^ofiai 1 Clem., yvixurjrevco Ta., 

-oojiai Dgn. 
,, KOivcoviKo?, we have kolucovos Herm., &c., -covico Barn., Mar. 
„ irvKvos, we have irvKvorepov 2 Clem., Ign., -wy Ign., Herm., 

Did. 
„ o-Kiiraa-fia, we have aKe-Trd^o) I Clem., Herm., Jus. 
„ a-T6ixa\o<i, we have d(TTo/xd-)(^r]T09 Herm. 
„ drraiSevTO?, we have dnaLSevTco? Ta. 
„ inavopOcocns, we have kiravopOoopat Mel. 
„ (T(ii(l)povi<Tp.6^, we have cr(o(f)povi(o/j.ai Jus., -eco i Clem,, &c. 
„ alpeTLKos, we have alperi^oy 2 Clem., aipeai? Ign., Mar., 

Herm., alpecncoTr]^ Jus. 
,, iepo7rp€7rrJ9, we have dytoTrpeTrrj? i Clem., Pip., Uparevco 

I Clem., &c. 
„ Kevocpcoviai, we have KeuoSo^ca 1 Clem., Ign., Herm., 

6fj.o(f)(oi'iai I Clem. 
„ vo/j.Lp.(o9, we have vonijxa i Clem., Herm., &c. 
„ yeveaXoyia, we have yeveaXoyeofxai Ar. 
„ vr](pdXLo?, we have pijcpco Ign., Pip., &c. 
For further instances see pp. 83 ff., and Appendix I, ' Residue,' 
pp. 161 ff. 

8. We have now applied to the vocabularies of Paul and of 
the Pastorals respectively a number of tests, the result of which 
has been in every case to show that the ten Paulines form 
a closely connected series, from which no single epistle stands 
out in such a way as to suggest a doubt of its common origin 
with the rest. It is not even the case that any particular epistle 



8o 



LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 



stands invariably at the top or the bottom of this series. From 
one point of view i Thess., from another 2 Thess., from another 
Col. takes the lowest place. Now Phil, and now i Cor. heads 
the list. The Pastorals on the other hand one and all consistently 
refuse to be brought anywhere near this series. They stand 
invariably at a greater distance from the nearest PauHne, than 
divides that epistle from the farthest of its fellows. 

This being so, one final experiment remains. We have now 
to inquire whether, under similar tests, the Pastorals fall inside 
or outside the group of Christian writings to which, on our theory, 
they belong chronologically and in other important respects — 



DIAGRAM XII 


Number of cuonJs. per pa^ . nor jbond dsea)b£re io tht Ap. Fathers 
HUM 2tt DID POL BAR IGM BlSTi-JMAR DGN ICL 


^ 

n 

10 

9 

8 

7 
















^ 




-^ 




14 
19 
\i 
n 
10 

9 
8 
7 














1 


y 




















1 












, 






























/ 


1 


















y 


y 


















/ 


















/ 


/ 




















/ 




















6 


6-3 7-3 81 9 9-6 io-4 136 1/ 


•3 H5 1^ 


V6 





not including their intrinsic worth, canonical authority, or inspira- 
tion. These belong of course to an entirely different field of 
inquiry, and must not be dragged in here to confuse the real issue. 

Each of the writings grouped under the title Apostolic Fathers, 
has naturally a certain number of words not to be found in any 
of the others. They too form from this point of view a fairly 
connected series, and the Pastorals prove on examination to fall 
well inside it. They have a larger number of unique words to 
the page than Hermas, 2 Clement, Ignatius, or the Didache, but 
a smaller number than 1 Clement, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 
or the Epistle to Diognetus. See Diagram XIL 

There is thus no counterweight on this side to set against the 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 8i 

mass of positive evidence produced in tiie foregoing pages, not 
to mention those which follow. We do not of course regard the 
result of this last experiment as having any particular positive 
importance, taken by itself. For this is obviously one of those 
facts which, when first isolated and then unduly emphasized, could 
be most misleading, and only yield their true significance, when 
studied in connexion with the great body of related facts to 
which they belong. Thus, it is also a fact, that every one of the 
ten Paulines, when examined from the same point of view, 
has a still smaller number of unique words per page, not only 
than the Pastorals, but also than any of the Apostolic Fathers 
themselves. From this a too hasty logic might draw the para- 
doxical inference that, if the Pastorals are to be assigned to this 
period; much more must the Paulines one and all belong to it 
too ! As an arguvientum ad koiuineni, that would break down 
over the fact that we have refrained from basing our opinion on 
so insecure a foundation. As serious reasoning, it would be to 
ignore, not only the whole of the evidence produced in these pages, 
but various other known and relevant facts, e. g. that Clement 
of Rome writing before the end of the First Century, names and 
quotes the First Epistle to the Corinthians explicitly as the work 
of the Apostle Paul (xlvii. i), and shows certain acquaintance with 
Rom. (xxxv. 5 f., xxxiii. i, &c.). The combined vocabulary of 
these early Christian writers is very extensive, and includes the 
majority of Paul's written words, not only as the greater includes 
the less, but as we might expect remembering that they possessed, 
studied, and revered his epistles. We do not propose to meet 
one paradox with another, and suggest that the relative frequency 
in the Pastorals, as compared with the Paulines, of words which 
do not appear in the Apostolic Fathers is a further argument 
against the theory that they were as well known, and as assidu- 
ously read, as the Paulines, by these writers, or were included by 
them in a Corpus Paidimim. We prefer to take our stand on 
the more moderate statement that we have found nothing in the 
vocabulary of the Pastorals to conflict with the opinion that their 
author lived and wrote between the years A. D. 95 and 145, 
whereas many facts hitherto unknown, if not unsuspected, have 
emerged in the course of our comparative studies, which strongly 
support, if they do not finally confirm, that opinion. 

2395 G 



82 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

It has already been pointed out (p. 68) that in the vast 
majority of cases, the context, in which these Pastoral Hapax 
Legomena occur in the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, 
is such as to exclude any thought of a quotation or direct 
reference to these epistles. If, in face of this fact, it should still 
be argued that the words in question may have come into the 
current speech of second-century Christendom via the study of 
these, along with other Pauline epistles, at any rate it will not be 
suggested that Epictetus, Appian, Galen, Polyaenus, M. Aurelius, 
&c., all enriched their Greek vocabulary in this way ! 

9. The Residue. 

There remain eighty-two words (marked • in Appendix I, A i) 
in the Pastorals, which are not to be found elsewhere in the 
N. T.,nor in the Apostolic Fathers, nor in the Apologists, i. e. in 
no Christian writing prior to A. D. 170. 

The question which naturally suggests itself at this point is : 
Are these words, or any large proportion of them, to be found 
in non-Christian writings of the same period, and more espe- 
cially during the first half of the second century? This 
again suggests the larger question : Does the vocabulary of 
the Pastorals as a whole, but more particularly in its non- 
Pauline elements, coincide to any large extent with that of 
Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, Dioscorides {c. A. D. 100), Plutarch 
(who died A. D. 120), Arrian (pupil and friend of Epictetus), 
Appian, Aelian, Philo Byblius, Ptolemaeus, Lucian, Polyaenus, 
Galen, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and their con- 
temporaries ? 

The answer to both these questions is in the affirmative. See 
Appendix I, ' Residue,' pp. 161 ff., where it is proved that at least 
fifty-seven of these ' Residue ' words do occur, some of them with 
great frequency, in books usually dated between the years A. D. 95 
and 170. 

In the same literature our ' A ' words generally — (A i) Hapax 
Legomena and (A 2) non-Pauline words found in later books of 
the N. T. — appear, we might almost say, on every page. It is 
certainly no uncommon thing to find several of them in a single 
sentence. ^ 

^ It has not seemed possible to print the large volume of evidence 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 83 

We are left with 25 (out of the 306 non-Pauline words in the 
Pastorals), the occurrence of which in Greek writings of the period 
to which we have assigned these epistles, we have to admit our 
inability at present to demonstrate with chapter and verse. For 
several of these we have cognates so close that we feel justified in 
regarding them, in each case, as simply another form of the same 
word. Thus, (i) in i Tim., if we do not actually find au^errlco 
between the stated limits (except in Papyri), av6evTr)<i appears 
in Hermas and in Moeris, avOevTLKos in 2 Clem. The unique Slu- 
TrapaTpt(3rj is represented by Siarpi^rj (Dio Chrys., Justin, Lucian, 
&c.), and -rrapaTpi^rj (Athenagoras), cf. dTroScarpilSco (Schol. in 
Lucian). Instead of iSpatcofxa we have iSpaio? in Ignatius, 
iSpd^co in I Clem., Ign., Jus., Ath., iSpaLorrjs in Dio Chr., (cf. 
Reizenstein's Poimmidres^ p. 343*, ^aBp.bs ovto?, S) riKvou, 
SiKaioavvrjs karlv ^Spaafxa), iSpaioco in Lucian. 

For T€KvoyoyLa {Anth. /'.ix.22) we have in \.\\eEp. adDiognetum 
TiKvoyovk(£>. For eK^rJTVCfL^ we have eK^rjTioi very often in the 
Apostolic Fathers and in Justin, and ^iqr-qcri^ in John, Acts, Justin, 
and Melito and Lucian. For (Anon. op. Suid.) TrpoKpL/ia [=prae- 
iudiciwn) there is TrpoKpiuoi in Justin and Melito. The use of 
vy\rr]\o(Ppoavvq and vy\rr}\6(Pp(i>v by Hermas, while i Clem, and 
Hermas have both TamLvocjipoavvr] and raireLvocppouioOf shows 
that the absence of vylrr]Xo(f)poueco is purely accidental. 

(ii) in 2 Tim. : dyriSLarLdefiaL is represented by Justin's dvTLTL- 
OefiaL in the same sense, and his SLariOe/xaL, cf. dyTLSiaTd^o/xaL 
(Epictetus). We have not found the word itself before Longinus 
{c. A. D. 250). For dcpiXdyado? there is (f)iXdyaOos in Plutarch, 
and a host of words like dcpLXoKuXo? (Plut.), direLpdyaOo^ (Diod.), 
dcpiXo^^vLa (i Clem.), d(pLX6cro(po? (Jus.), while dcpiXoKdyaOca is 
found in a second-century papyrus. a-vi'KaKOTradico is repre- 
sented by o-f/xTra^eo) (Jus.) and KaKoiraBeo) (2 Clem, and Lucian). 

(iii) in Titus. If not dcpOopta, Justin (as well as Diodorus and 
Artemidorus v. 95) uses the adjective d(f)6opo^, or in case the 
reading dSia^Oopta were preferred, we have dSidcfydopos in 
Plutarch and Galen. KaXoSiBdaKaXo^ seems to be unique, but 
KaKoBiSaaKaXid) occurs in 2 Clem., KaKoSiSacrKaXia in Ignatius. 

summarized in these four lines. But it is before us as we write, and is to our 
mind overwhelming. 

G 2 



84 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS AND 

Similarly fiaraioXoyo? may be confined to Titus, but fxaTaioXoyLa 
is used by Polycarp and by Plutarch. 

For several more of these ' Residue ' words we have formations 
only a little less closely related, or at least so entirely analogous 
as to leave no shadow of difficulty in the way of our belief that 
they all belong to one family, and formed a part of the same 
working vocabulary. Thus Xoyofiax^o) and Xoyofxa^ia have 
their counterpart in theXoyoTroieco and Xoyonoua of Athenagoras. 
6pdoTo/xi(o has its complements in the KaLvoTOfieco of Tatian 
and Lucian, and the 6p6oyva>ixov^s of Justin. The word itself 
occurs in the LXX, Prov, xi. 5. iXey^ios also occurs fairly 
often in the LXX, while the form 'iXey^o^, as well as the verb 
iXiyxco, is common in this as in other periods, SiSaKTiKo^ 
occurs so far as we know only in Philo, but its cognates in 
our period especially are legion. Another unicum, emSiopOoco 
Boeckh, Inscr. ii. 409, is represented by the SLopdooo of i Clem, 
and others, as well _as the enauopOoco, -(00-19 of Epict., Galen, &c. 
dKardyvoiCTTo^, which occurs in a Maccabees, has its close ana- 
logies in Justin's dKaraa-KevaaTo^, and the dKaTdX-q-rrros of 
I Clem, and Athenagoras. With avroKardKptTos (Philo) com- 
pare I Clement's avTiiraiv^Tos, and the KardKpiro? of Ignatius. 

Finally, Karaa-rp-qvLdoi) occurs in the ' Ignatian ' Ep. ad Antioch., 
c. 1 1 ; (ppevairdTrj^ is a derivative of the Pauline (PpevaTrardco 
(Gal. vi. 3), but akin also to the (Ppei^rjprj^ of M. Antoninus and 
Lucian ; Kava-T-qpid^ofiaL is found in Strabo, in a second-century 
papyrus, and in the Schol. in Lucian; veocpvTo^ ('neophyte') 
does not appear elsewhere, so far as we know, in this sense, till 
much later ; and fi^jx^pdva is a Latin word and occurs in the 
' genuine ' verse % Tim. iv. 13. We do not think that any one will 
venture to deny, on the strength of any or all of these, the thesis 
which we now lay down as rigorously proved scientific fact — the 
language of the Pastorals is the Greek of the first half of the 
second century. 

10. Siinnnary of Linguistic Argmnent. 

I. The language of the Pastorals shows on the face of it 
certain strongly marked peculiarities as compared with the other 
Paulines. A close and methodical examination very greatly 



EARLY SECOND-CENTURY WRITERS 85 

accentuates this contrast, and reveals further discrepancies none 
the less significant for being largely beneath the surface. 

2. It is true that every Pauline epistle, and every sub-group of 
Paulines, is distinguished from the rest by its use of certain 
characteristic expressions, and its disuse of others. But when 
every allowance has been made for this wholly natural and obvi- 
ous consideration, the fact remains that, under similar tests, 
the ten Paulines are still found to maintain among themselves 
a close and unmistakable family likeness. They form a clearly 
defined series ; and the actual variations among them keep 
within certain limits, and are obedient to certain laws. The 
freedom and originality of the genuine Pauline spirit is in no wa)'' 
hampered by its obviously unconscious observance of these laws, 
and shows itself quite otherwise than by any transgression of 
these limits. The Pastorals refuse utterly to be brought within 
or near this series, and at every point exceed these limits and 
break these laws. 

3. For such a discrepancy within the authentic works of a 
single author there is at present no known analogy in litera- 
ture. Certain instances which have been alleged prove on 
examination to be no exception, but rather, most striking 
examples of those same laws which we have found governing the 
relations between the ten Paulines, but not between these and the 
Pastorals. 

4. It is universally admitted that the linguistic peculiarities 
of the Pastorals are such as to call loudly for some explanation. 
But while numerous explanations have been forthcoming from 
the side of those who still adhere to the traditional view of their 
origin, neither singly nor collectively are these sufficient, in the 
judgement of * critics ', to neutralize the overwhelming cumula- 
tive effect of the great body of evidence pointing in an entirely 
different direction. The true explanation, they maintain, and the 
only one consistent with all the known facts, is that the Pastorals 
were not written by Paul, but by a devout and earnest Paulinist 
with our ten Paulines and, as many think, other genuine notes 
before him, during the half century A. D. 95-145. 

5. In support of the critical view, it has now been demon- 
strated that these peculiarities of diction do in fact coincide 
with actual developments in the current speech of the Christian 



86 LANGUAGE OF THE PASTORALS, ETC. 

Church, and in the working vocabulary of Christian leaders and 
thinkers during this very period. A large percentage of the 
words and expressions in the Pastorals which are foreign to the 
vocabulary of Paul, in so far as this is known to us by his 
genuine epistles, is found to belong to the vocabulary of the 
Apostolic Fathers. Of the Pauline words which appear to have 
dropped out of use among these writers nearly 94 per cent, are 
wanting in the Pastorals also. When the individual Paulines are 
submitted to similar tests, the result is once again to prove that 
among themselves they show a natural variation, but within 
certain fairly narrow limits. Once again they form a series. 
And the Pastorals stand outside that series but inside the series 
presented by the Apostolic Fathers. They have linguistically 
as much in common with these as these have with one another. 
And they have actually many more words in common with these 
and the Apologists together, than with the entire N. T. including 
the ten Pauline epistles. 

6. Finally^ it is proved that of those comparatively few re- 
maining words in the vocabulary of the Pastorals, which do not 
occur in Christian writers between A. D. 95 and 170, practically 
the whole number did, nevertheless, belong to the current Greek 
speech, and are actually used by non- Christian writers of that 
period. 



PART III 

GENUINE PAULINE ELEMENTS IN THE 
PASTORALS 

More than once in the preceding pages we have drawn 
attention to the fact that, along with so many expressions 
foreign to the diction of Paul, the Pastorals do unquestionably 
contain a notable quantity of definitely Pauline matter bearing 
the unmistakable stamp of the Apostle. The only question is — 
Who put it there ? For, stated in these general terms, this fact 
is of course perfectly consistent with the theory formulated in 
our opening chapter (pp. 5 fif.), and is indeed essential to it, no 
whit less than it is to the view that Paul wrote the whole of 
these epistles, as they stand. We have now, therefore, to examine 
the relevant data more closely and in fuller detail, with a view to 
determining which explanation they seem to favour. 

These elements in the language of the Pastorals, on the 
Pauline origin and character of which practically all parties are 
now agreed, fall under two distinct categories, one of which, the 
so-called ' Personalia ', will come up for consideration presently. 

I. Pauline Phrases. 

The other, to which we must now turn our attention, is the 
extraordinary number oi phrases, consisting sometimes of half a 
dozen or more words together, which coincide more or less closely, 
many of them exactly, with Paul's own most characteristic 
expressions in the ten epistles. 

The vital issue here is, whether these correspondences are 
simply what we ought to expect between different writings by 
the same author, or whether they point rather to the inter- 
mediate activities of another mind, weaving the words of his 



88 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

great exemplar, along with his own, into one web and one 
design. 

The actual phrases now in question may be seen by turning 
first to our text of the Pastorals (Appendix IV), where they are 
underlined, and references given in the margin, next, to (a) the 
Pauline Parallels (Appendix II, B), where they are collected and 
classified under the different Pauline epistles with which they 
show connexion. This is supplemented by (d) a list of words 
shared by the Pastorals with each single Pauline exclusively. 
See Appendix I, B i (and B 2). 

Some of the correspondences produced are of course more 
striking than others. Some are only convincing when taken 
in conjunction with the whole body of evidence in which they 
play a very minor part. But taken as a whole, the facts here 
arranged seem to leave no room for doubt that our author must 
in any case have been deeply versed in those Pauline writings 
which have come down to us, and actually incorporated a number 
of words and phrases from each of them into his own three 
epistles. 

While we have echoes from every period of Paul's epistolary 
career, and from every specimen of his literary craftsmanship, 
the most numerous and striking of these are taken, not from the 
latest group — as would have been natural, if he had written the 
Pastorals during and shortly before a second Roman imprison- 
ment — but from Romans and i and 2 Corinthians, precisely 
those epistles which were fitted both by their length and their 
character to make the strongest impression, and with which, as a 
matter of fact, the Roman Clement and other Christian writers 
of the early second century show the closest and most certain 
acquaintance.^ Even 2 Thess. and Philem., short as they are, 
furnish several examples of what we should have to regard as 
very curious coincidences, if nothing more. With a helping hand 
from the other epistles, to which they are bound by so many ties, 
even these make a strong bid for recognition as giving evidence 
of definite literary filiation. But for the rest the proofs of such 
a connexion as we have suggested seem to us quite conclusive. 

Now is there anything whatever, in the parallels and agree- 

^ Cf. The Oxford Society of Historical Theology, T/ie N. T. i?i the Apostolic 
Fathers, 1905, p. 137, (Sic. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 89 

ments here adduced, inconsistent with the theory that the 
Pastorals were written early in the second century by a devout 
Paulinist, with the genuine epistles of Paul either directly before 
his eyes, or, as the result of close and reverent study, well in his 
mind ? 

If this question is answered, as we think it must be, in the 
negative, we may proceed a step further, and inquire whether the 
facts before us are not better explained in this way than on 
the supposition that Paul wrote the whole of these epistles in 
substantially their present form. It is, to say the least, some- 
what surprising to find the Apostle quoting himself to such an 
extent as must, on the latter hypothesis, be admitted to be the 
case. It can hardly be called an illustration of that remarkable 
freshness and originality of expression, as well as of thought, 
which is so conspicuous in the other Pauline epistles, and is 
sometimes said to explain the very numerous and striking 
divergences from the phraseology of those epistles, which we 
have found in the Pastorals. It is true that Paul himself has, 
like most other writers, his own favourite turns of speech which 
keep cropping up in one epistle after another. But we have not 
found between any one genuine epistle and the others anything 
like the great series of such composite links connecting the 
Pastorals with them all. Indeed so numerous and striking are 
these verbal agreements that it becomes a very serious question 
whether Paul himself would have been able, or likely, to 
reproduce, purely from memory, such a variety of extracts from 
letters which he had dictated seven or eight years previously. 
Supposing that the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals were fully 
established, we should almost feel driven to conclude that the 
Apostle must have obtained, or retained, copies of his own 
earlier epistles, and refreshed his memory of their contents before 
setting to work on the Pastorals. Even granting that very 
remote possibility, and setting aside the whole of the evidence 
produced in our previous section (Part II), it seems particularly 
surprising that the Apostle should have thought it necessary 
to instruct Timothy to such an extent in identically the 
same terms as had been used, so many years before, in those 
letters (to the Thessalonians, Romans,^ Corinthians,^ Philippians, 
* xvi. 21. * I Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, 2 Cor. i. I, ig. 



90 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

Colossians, and Philemon) in which this very Timothy had been 
expressly associated with himself. 

It is in these very phrases that we find not a few of those 
undoubtedly Pauline words which appear, as was pointed out 
pp. 24, 26 f , once and only this once in the Pastorals, e. g. in i Tim. : 
B I. e^aTrardco, dXodo), (3ov9, (pinooo, dcpopfirj, oXe6po9. B 2. 
dyiacriJLos, doparos, d(f)$apT09, ypdcpco, Svo, rpeh, €kt6^, SiaXoyL- 
<7//oy, fi€(riTr)9, irapdKXrjcn^, 7rapprjcrLa,napa8LSa>fit, OLKovo/XLa, crdp^, 
reXo^, eTTirpeTTO), y\r^v8oiiaL. 

In 2 Tim. : B i. dTi/xia, dXa^oov, da-ropyos, dSidXenrTO^ /xveta, 
fiopcpQXTL^, oarpaKLvo^, a-vr^acriXeva), crvv^dca. B 2. dTTLcrrioiy 
SecTfiLo?, Sea/j-o^, Sioo, eyeipco, kirinoOeco, eTriKaXov/xai, Karapyeco, 
Odvaro^, KXrjcri^, Xarpeva, TrXrjpoa), xapd, crKevo?, anep/xa, crvva- 
TToOvrjcrKa), [veKpos)' 

In Titus: B i. xpriaTorrj^. B 2. dpy^at, e^ovaiai^ eurpenco, 
OLKoi'Ofios, KXrjpovojxo^, TrepLTO/xr]. 

But supposing that the presence of these Pauline expressions 
really did come about in the way here suggested, might we not 
reasonably expect to find at one point or another some indication 
of that fact? Would not our second-century Paulinist be almost 
bound to reveal himself sooner or later, if not by any downright 
blunder, at any rate by the occasional introduction of some 
Pauline phrase in a context to which it might be made to apply, 
but not with quite the same fitness as in its original setting, and 
not without some modification of its original meaning improbable 
in Paul, but natural in a secondary writer? Are there in these 
epistles any indications of this kind ? We think there are. 

Take, for instance, the familiar Pauline parenthesis, i Tim. ii. 7 
dXr\Q(.iav Xeyoa, ov yp-evSonaL = Rom. ix. i — a remark which was 
wholly natural and convincing in its original setting. In telling 
the Christians at Rome of the intense spiritual agony and travail 
with which he longed incessantly for the conversion of his fellow- 
countrymen, and his readiness to lose his own soul for their sake 
(if that would have helped !), he felt quite reasonably that to 
people who did not yet know him personally such a statement 
might seem extravagant. Yet it was neither more nor less than 
the truth. So too when he was giving the Galatians an outline 
of his life and movements subsequent to his conversion, in order 
to convince them that his apostolic authority had indeed come to 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 91 

him directly from God, and through no human mediation, it was 
entirely to the point for him to add the solemn asseveration 
Gal. i. 20 iSo'v kva>7nov tov 6eov otl ov ylrevSofxai. And no less 
appropriate was it, when declaring, paradoxically, as it might 
well sound to the Corinthians, that he gloried in his very weak- 
nesses, for him to insist, 2 Cor. xi. 31 ^eoy . . . olSev . . . on ov 
■\jfevSo/j.aL} But now the Apostle is writing neither to strangers 
who have never set eyes on him, nor to foolish and unstable 
minds bewitched and misled by influences foreign to the gospel 
(Gal. i. 6 ff., iii. i, 2 Cor. xi. 4), but to his true and trusted friend, 
the loyal comrade of so many years. What was the point, and 
where the necessity of assuring Timothy, of all people in the 
world, that he really was speaking the truth, and not telling lies, 
when he asserted that he, Paul, had been appointed an Apostle 
and teacher of the Gentiles ? By what conceivable possibility 
could it have occurred to Timothy to have denied or doubted 
that? But as addressed to the Timothys of our author's time 
this solemn reminder, in the familiar phrase of the Apostle, has 
edge and point. It was needed, and there was some hope that it 
would not prove altogether ineffective. 

Again, the coy in 2 Tim. i. 3 is certainly awkward and difficult 
to account for grammatically. There is much to be said for 
Holtzmann's explanation (PB., p. iti) that it arises from the 
combination here of two Pauline phrases, one from Rom. i. 8 f 
^vy^apLCTTeoi rS) deoicS Xarp^vco ... coy dSiaXeinrais fipeiav v/xmu ttolov- 
fiai ktX., and one from i Thess. iii. 6 e'x^'''^ ^.v^iav -qiioiv dyadrju, . . . 
kiTLTroOovvTes . . . vvkto^ kol rj/xepa^, ktX. 2 Tim. i. 9 ov Kara ra. 
'4pya rjjjLoou looks like a slip for the Pauline ovk e^ epycou Rom. ix. it, 
xi. 6, Gal. ii. 16, iii. 2, 5, 10, Eph. ii. 9. Paul says more than 
once, quoting Ps. Ixii. 13 = Prov. xxiv. 12, that God will reward 
every man Kara to, tpya avrov Rom. ii. 6, 2 Cor. xi. 15, 2 Tim. 
iv, 14 (a genuine verse !). 

Again, 2 Tim. ii. 11 f. e/ yap o-vi^aTredduofjLey, kol crvf^rjcro/xei', 
agrees almost verbatim with Rom. vi. 8 el Sk dneOdvofiev avu 
XpiaTM, Tn(TT€vofi€v OTL KOL cTvi'^rjcrofxei' avjS). But whereas in 
Romans the aorist is perfectly natural, for he is speaking of the 
death to sin which took place at conversion, here the reference is 

^ If these words are taken as referring rather to the statement of fact which 
follows them, our argument remains the same. 



93 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

clearly to literal physical death in martyrdom, which for the real 
Paul was not yet accomplished, though so near at hand when he 
wrote, if indeed he did write this verse to Timothy. This, and the 
significant transference of avv from preposition to prefix (see 
p. 75), seems once more to suggest the secondary writer quoting 
a familiar saying of the Apostle in a way in which we cannot 
quite think that the Apostle would have quoted himself. This 
impression would be still further confirmed if we were sure that 
the usual translation of Triarbs 6 Xoyoy is correct. It seems 
a little strange to find even an apostle quoting his own * sayings ' 
with so much solemnity as 'faithful'. But elsewhere in the 
Pastorals 6 Aoyo? consistently means the Word of God, the Gospel 
message of salvation ; and we incline to believe with Holtzmann 
that it does so here.^ In that case the yap introduces not a 
' faithful saying ', but a sort of proof-text, showing that the 
Divine Promise is, like the God who gave it, worthy of all 
trust. 

A glance at our text (Appendix IV, pp. 183 ff.) will show that 
these borrowed Pauline phrases are distributed throughout the 
whole body of the Pastorals. Not quite evenly, however. There 
are passages like 2, Tim. i. 1-15 which consist almost exclusively 
of such phrases, so that practically the whole of the materials are, 
in this sense, not only Pauline, but are Paul himseU, his ipsissim a 
verba, and only the arrangement, and an occasional touch of 
foreign colour, betrays the later mind. On the other hand, there 
are pages, like i Tim. v. 1-19, vi. 7-21, 2 Tim. ii. 15-iii. 6, 
Titus i. 13-ii. 15, in which the Pauline echoes almost die 
away, where our author is evidently composing more and more 
freely, and in doing so falls unconsciously but inevitably into the 
vocabulary of his time, and into a general type of composition, 
syntax, grammar, style, and diction which we come to recognize 
as peculiarly his own. Here the number of words foreign to the 
genuine Paulines rises to its maximum — 40 to 46 per page ; two 
lines together, at most, free from such words ; and sometimes 
four or five lines together with hardly a Pauline word in them, 
e.g. I Tim. vi. i8-2ia, 2 Tim. iii. 2-5, Titus i. 7b-8, ii. \-^2l, 
iii. 9-1 1. 

* And in the four other verses where this phrase occurs. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 93 

And yet again there are. places where phrases from the genuine 
PauHnes, and non-Pauh"ne terms in use among second-century 
writers, alike recede, and we find ourselves suddenly back in the 
familiar atmosphere, listening to the familiar accents, no echo 
this time, but the real Paul, or else the most marvellous imitation 
in all literature ! It is precisely this last observation which leads 
us to lay down our second thesis, — 

II. Personalia. 

This author must have had before his eyes, and has incor- 
porated bodily into his epistles and so has preserved for all time, 
a certain amount of genuine Pauline material, which cannot be 
identified with any of the surviving epistles, and would otherwise, 
.in all human probability, have been lost beyond recall. 

In proof of this proposition it will be best to take as our 
starting-point those verses about which there is the greatest 
unanimity among critics and least room in fact for differences of 
opinion as to their authenticity — 2 Tim. iv. 6-22 and Titus iii. 
12 f. There is absolutely no trace here of the doctrinal contro- 
versies, nor of the ecclesiastical situation, with which the bulk of 
these epistles is occupied. Instead we find a series of personal 
details, greetings, messages, items of news, small commissions, 
names— some referring to people and places already familiar to 
students of Paul's life, others to companions and fields of service 
of which we otherwise know nothing. These Personalia are so 
vivid, so concrete, so entirely in the vein of the references to be 
found in every letter that Paul ever wrote, that, we may safely 
assert, no one would ever have dreamed of doubting their 
authenticity, had it not been for the context in which they occur. 

I. 

With regard to these Baur wrote, ' One must admit that in this 
respect the epistle (2 Tim.) does not lack colour and life. But 
this is only the happy thought of invention ; and we must not let 
ourselves be led away by it into mistaking what is mere appear- 
ance and copy for truth and reality ' {PB., 1835, p. 68). 

Similarly Holtzmann, ' Whoever once undertook to write in 
Paul's name, was bound in the nature of things to do what 
he could to render the fiction as convincing as possible. The 



94 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

analogy of the genuine epistles was bound to suggest to him 
a certain quantum of personal notices' {PB, 125). 

But what if he had the real thing ready to his hand in the 
form of actual notes written by the Apostle himself to one or 
another of his companions ? In that case it would have been 
superfluous, and a waste of energy, to say the least, if he had set 
these aside in favour of laborious imitations of his own. 

Holtzmann had considered this hypothesis (which had been 
put forward as early as 1843 by Credner and Hitzig, but was 
soon abandoned by the former), and he admitted frankly that 
there is not a word to be said a priori against the abstract 
possibility, and even probability, that Paul may have written 
such brief personal notes to private friends, which would remain 
for a time in their possession, and later on, coming into the hands 
of our second-century Paulinist, might have been used by him as 
a welcome basis for the composition of new apostolic letters. 
He admitted further, and indeed showed in detail, that each 
separate item, taken by itself, is capable of being fitted into one 
moment or another in Paul's known life. But what seemed to 
him decisive against this, as the true explanation of the facts 
before us, was the utter impossibility of finding any one situation 
into which they can all be fitted. Convincing enough as they 
are when taken singly, he shows how, as a whole and collectively, 
they contradict each other at point after point. From this he 
draws the inference that they cannot be authentic messages from 
the real Paul, but must be regarded as belonging to the Pauline 
mask assumed by the mictor ad Tirnotheum. 

' This mere imitation soon gets itself involved in internal 
contradictions, and so betrays itself for what it is. Thus we 
read here in rapid succession, 2 Tim. iv. 11, 16, "only Luke 
is with me", and "at my first defence no one stood by me", 
and between stands, iv. 12, " Tychicus I sent to Ephesus", 
with no connecting link between these sentences. We are to 
suppose that " all " have forsaken the captive. Yet, as Alexander 
is an opponent, only Demas is actually named, v. 10. For 
the //€ kyKareXiTTev does not refer to Crescens and Titus, as does 
the knopevO-q. These seem rather to have been sent, like 
Tychicus, in the interests of the Mission. And if "all" have 
deserted the Apostle, and only Luke is with him, what about 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 95 

the companions named in verse 21 ? Such lapsus memoriae et 
calami readily befall one who is thinking himself into a strange 
situation, but not one who really is lying forsaken in prison ' (ib.). 

Holtzmann and others before and after him have in fact made 
out an unanswerable case for their thesis, that there is no single 
moment in Paul's life, as known to us from Acts and the ten 
epistles, into which these personal references as a whole can by 
any ingenuity be inserted. There is no need to labour this 
point, for it is one of the very few on which all parties are now 
agreed. Isolated details might at need be explained away. We 
might say that Luke was the only companion still sharing Paul's 
imprisonment, and yet a few leading members of the Roman 
Church might have found courage and opportunity to visit him 
and send greetings to Timothy. But the whole picture is simply 
riddled with inconsistencies. It is like a jig-saw puzzle, or 
rather, several, of which the separate pieces, once mixed together, 
defy all efforts to make them fit one another so as to form one 
complete picture within the required frame. 

But that the inference drawn by Holtzmann from this undeniable 
fact was nevertheless a mistaken inference, is common ground 
to practically all present-day scholars. A necessary inference 
it certainly is not. For there are at least two other alternatives, 
one of which, it is now agreed, he dismissed too lightly — though 
it is by no means agreed which of the two this is. To these 
alternative explanations, and the choice between them, we shall 
return presently. Meanwhile, it may be taken as agreed further 
that Holtzmann's conclusion is not only needless, but is also, to 
say the least, extremely improbable. It does not do justice to 
the extraordinary realism which its advocates, from Baur on- 
wards, could not help seeing in these personal details, but of which 
they failed to grasp the true significance. These are too vivid, 
individual, concrete, and altogether too life-like to be dismissed 
as mere fiction — at any rate until every other possibility has 
been exhausted. We have no right, it is true, to deny dogma- 
tically and a priori the possibility of a second-century Christian 
possessing a grain of historic imagination ; nor does the mere 
fact that some of his contemporaries seem to have been singularly 
lacking in this respect justify us in setting any arbitrary or narrow 
limits to his gifts in this direction. Fiction is often more realistic 



96 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

than the report of an eyewitness. But as fiction these details 
would be not only good, but incomparably and incredibly true to 
life. The most inimitable features of the most inimitable style 
in all literature are too faithfully reproduced. They have the 
genuine Pauline stamp. They ring true. 

In order to satisfy ourselves that this is no merely subjective 
impression, but is based on objective and concrete facts, let us 
now inquire what happens when these alleged Pauline fragments 
are isolated from their present context and subjected to the 
same linguistic tests as we have applied to the epistles as a 
whole. Do they, or do they not survive the ordeal? The 
answer is in the affirmative. Of all that has been said in Part II 
about the far-reaching and deeply underlying divergences of the 
Pastorals from the normal Pauline type, hardly a line applies 
to the paragraphs of which we are now speaking. They keep 
well inside the normal Pauline number of Hapax Legomena and 
of other words not found elsewhere in the ten Paulines. And 
such as there are, in no way suggest a second-century origin, nor 
raise a doubt of their Pauline authorship. Phrases which might 
have been borrowed from the ten Paulines are conspicuous by 
their absence, or at least their rarity. For the rest we have 
Pauline words used in a perfectly Pauline way. And of these 
(to clinch all) a really extraordinary number, 40 or more to the 
page (practically every significant word), make here their solitary 
appearance in the Pastorals. 

(i) Apart from the first and last pages of a Tim., the lowest 
number of non-Pauline words in any complete page in the 
Pastorals, counting repetitions, is 22, the highest 46, and the 
average 35-1. On the first page of 2 Tim. which is largely 
a mosaic of phrases from the ten Paulines, there are 16, on the 
last 11. The average throughout the ten Paulines is 13' 2, the 
range from 8 to 17-3. (See Diagram III, p. 25.) 

The lowest number of N. T. Hapax Legomena in any other 
complete page in the Pastorals is 13, the highest 23, the average 
17-4. On the first page of 2 Tim. there are 11, on the last 4. In 
the Paulines they range from 3-3 to 6-2, the average being 4-5 (or, 
including repetitions, from 4, 2 Thess.-Philem., to 7-7, 2 Cor.) 

Of these four, two, [lefi^pdva and (paiXovq^y are Latin words 
and do not occur in Goodspeed ; dvaXvais only once, in i Clem. ; 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 97 

Xa\K€V9 once each in Hermas and the Ep. ad Diognetiim. In 
Titus iii. 12 f. there are no Hapax Legomena. 

Of the other non-Pauline words in these paragraphs, voixikos 
does not occur in Goodspeed, \€a>v is a quotation from Ps. xxii. 
22, dTroXeiTTco occurs in both groups, but in a different sense from 
that which it bears here. If Paul does not happen to use Xtai^, 
^poyuoy, or \^eLpi(i)v, he has at any rate vnepXtav, eSpafxou, and 
Trapaxeifid^co ; and no one would think of calling either of these 
words, nor yet KpiTrjs nor XeLiro/xai, a link with the vocabulary 
of second-century Christendom. They fall, every one of them, 
under the category referred to on p. 51 f. (iii). Their absence from 
Paul's other epistles and their presence here is simply and 
adequately explained by the remark, that he had no occasion to 
use them elsewhere, and now that he has the occasion, they were 
the natural words for him to use. 

(ii) On the other hand we find, in these short paragraphs, the 
following long list of words which do occur in Paul's epistles, 
but are not found elsewhere in the Pastorals — in Titus iii. 12 ff., 
Tre/iTTO), eKei, K^KpiKa, n a pa)(€i fiasco, cnrovSaiQ)?, TrpoTr^fnrco, dvay- 
Kaio9, xpeta, aKapnos, dcnrd^ofjLaL {bis), 0fXeft). 

In 2 Tim. iv. 6-22 — cnrevBoiiaL, ecpia-Trjixi, reXeco, Xonrov (adv.), 
dvoKeifJ-ai, aric^ai'o^, dyaivd<o {bis), ^acriXeia {bis), kyKaraXdiTTCO 
{bis), dTTOcrreXXco, ^l^Xlov, dcrdeveco, diroXoyia, Trapayiuo/xai, 
Xoyi^oixat, pvojxai {bis), errovpdtfLO^, crTOfxa, da-jrd^o/xai (bis), 
while dvaXafi^dvco, fievco, Trapiarrj/jic are used in different senses 
from those which they carry elsewhere in the Pastorals. 

In the remaining verses in the body of 2 Tim. which we, in 
common with many others, regard as genuine, the following 
Pauline words make their only appearance in the Pastorals — 
TroXXdKi9, aXvcns, crTrovSaLCo^, ^rjreco, evpiaKCo {bis), napd-Kvpiov, 
Sicoyixo^ {bis), 7rd6rj/j.a, oioy {bis), VTro(f)ep<x), pvofiai {bis), Kpii^co, 
^ariXeia, i(pLaTT]fiL, evayyeXiaTTJ?: and the following, if unique 
in Paul, are at least equally so in the writer of these epistles (the 
first five are also missing in the Apostolic Fathers) — vojmlkos 
(subs.), ipaiXovq'i, fiefi^pdua, evKaipco^, aKaipcos., x^tp-div, ^aXK^vs, 
Xiav, Xkcdv, dva-^v)(co, ^iXriov, dycoyq, dfdXvais, Spopos, Kpirrj^. 

(iii) It is precisely in these passages that we find those 
examples of the characteristic Pauline A^iacohitJia and Oratio 
Variata (2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. i, 17), of the familiar play on words 

2399 H 



9H PAULINE ELEMENTS 

((vpeu //€.,. €vpeiu eXeo? 2 Tim. i. 17 f., irriCTTrjdi . . . e^ecrTtjKei' 
iv. 2, 6, evKuipcos . . . a.Kaip'j)^ ... Kaipo^ ib., 7rXr)po(f>6prj(Toi/ . . . 
a-Trh'So/xaL iv. 5 f., evxprja-TO? iv. ii, cf. pp. 112 f., I22 f.), and the 
parentheses (2 Tim. i. 18, iv. 8, 14, 16), which have sometimes 
been used, too hastily, to prove the ' genuineness ' of the Pastorals 
as a whole. 

(iv) When submitted to the same acid tests which have led us 
to deny the Pauline authorship of these epistles in their present 
form, the passages now in question thus emerge with their 
authenticity more than ever confirmed. They stand side by 
side with the more certainly genuine of Paul's epistles, and are 
separated from the bulk of the Pastorals by the same gulf which 
divides these from the genuine epistles. 

But still further, not only can the diction of these passages be 
truly described as identical with that of the ten Paulines generally. 
In each separate instance, we find on examination special points 
of resemblance, clear, definite, and unmistakable, with the Paulines 
of precisely that period to which the subject-matter of the fragment 
in question has led us to assign it. See pp. 118 ff. 

This fact stands in striking and significant contrast with that 
other fact, to which we have already drawn attention (pp. 24, 48 f.), 
that when treated as a homogeneous unit, the Pastorals can 
neither by any ingenuity be made to fit any single situation in 
the known life of Paul, nor do they show any special linguistic 
affinity with the later epistles, such as we should reasonably 
have expected to find, on the hypothesis that they were written 
last of all, during a period of release and a second Roman 
imprisonment. 

And yet again, all these observations together cast into high 
relief one other fact, which emerged in the course of our previous 
investigations, viz. that 2 Tim., when treated as an integral whole, 
consistently stands much nearer to the genuine Paulines than do 
the other two Pastorals. (Diagrams I and II, pp. 2i, 23.) 

This is due, as we now see, simply and solely to the page and 
a half of admittedly genuine Pauline matter included in this 
epistle. When this is eliminated, and the suspected paragraphs 
are examined by themselves, they are found to contain just as 
large a proportion of non-Pauline words as the other two Pastorals. 
In fact the record page in all these epistles is 2 Tim. ii. 15-iii. 6, 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 99 

with 46 such words.^ This is followed first by half a page or 
so of composite matter, in which first- and second-century elements 
alternate, and then by that page of personal references the au- 
thenticity of which we have seen no reason to doubt, but every 
reason to affirm. See Diagram III, p. 25. 

We have now brought into juxtaposition a whole series of 
undeniable facts which, even when regarded in their separate 
groups, all seem to tell strongly against the traditional opinion 
and in favour of the view advocated in these pages. Their 
combined effect seems to us quite irresistible in its cogency. It 
clinches and completes our linguistic argument. If there be an 
explanation of these various results, by which they can all be made 
to seem consistent with either (i) the Pauline authorship of these 
epistles as a whole, or (2) the non-Pauline authorship of these 
Personalia, we must confess that it has hitherto entirely escaped us. 

Again, no adequate explanation has ever yet been given by 
Baur, Holtzmann, or their followers, of the curiously uneven 
way in which these Personalia are distributed among our 
three epistles. Why should 2 Tim. have the lion's share, and 
I Tim. little or nothing ? On Holtzmann's principles our author 
was just as much * bound to do what he could to give an appear- 
ance of probability to his fiction ' in the one case as in the other. 
And if bound to try, able also to succeed. For the author who 
was, ex hypothcsi, capable of inventing such life-like imitations of 
Paul's manner once, and twice, was surely equally capable of doing 
the same again for the third time. Practice makes perfect. We 
should have expected to find the circumstances and personalities 
of the Ephesian church reproduced with a touch no less sure and 
convincing. But nothing of the kind. After the half-hearted 
beginning i Tim. i. 3, he breaks ofT in the middle of his sentence ; 
qualifies in ii. 15 any too definite expectations raised by the half 
promise in vs. 14; and hardly seems to make another effort, 
unless we are to regard the apostolic panacea (i Tim. v. 23) as 
a last experiment in this direction. Granting that he had already 
used up the most interesting moment in Paul's Hfe — the eve of 

' Further, the elimination of these admittedly Pauline passaees involves a 
reduction in the total number (542) of words common to the vocabularies of 
this writer and of Paul, by between fifty and sixty, and the addition of these 
to the number of characteristic Pauline terms not used by this writer on his 
own account. 

H 2 



loo PAULINE ELEMENTS 

his martyrdom, when, if ever, a man's utterances will be received as 
prophetic— there was still something more than this to be made of 
that dramatic crisis which compelled him to turn his back for the 
last time on the scene of so many labours, and drove him from the 
midst of so many friends to enter on a new stage of his life-journey. 
Besides, the writer who was gifted enough to invent touches 
like the (nrhSofxai, &c., in verse 6, the ivxprjaTos in verse ii, the 
(paiX6pr]9, &c., in verse 13, and in fact the whole section 2 Tim. 
iv. 6-22, would surely have been capable of avoiding some of its 
more glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies. He would not 
have made Paul follow up the noble and impressive announce- 
ment of his immediate ' departure ' by a series of commissions, 
which, if he meant what he said and said what was true, it would 
have been a physical impossibility for Timothy to receive and 
carry out till long after it was too late. He would not have 
made the Apostle waste his last moments in telling Timothy 
what must have been stale news — like the mission of Tychicus to 
Ephesus, the detention of Erastus at Corinth, and of Trophimus at 
Miletus, and the result of that defence which Timothy himself had 
been sent to Philippi on purpose to report to their friends there. 
Nor is it easy to assign any really satisfactory motive for such 
details as e.g. the cloak and parchments. If they were intended 
to deceive us into the belief that Paul himself really did write 
this passage, they have certainly achieved a marvellous success— 
in spite of Baur's warnings. But in that case, what becomes of 
Holtzmann's theory of a perfectly naive and innocent pseudony- 
mity ? It would then be difficult to avoid the crude commonplace 
verdict of a fraud and a forgery, deliberate, and, we should have 
to admit, almost diabolically clever. It would be difficult to 
sustain Holtzmann's antithesis between our author, with his hieh 
purpose, pure conscience, and exalted motives, and ' the real 
falsarins, more interested in his mask ' than in the ideas he wished 
to introduce beneath it. But failing that, what other motive can 
we assign ? Is it purely an artistic touch ? If so, it is the most 
consummate art, amounting to positive genius; and we wonder why 
there are not more ' happy thoughts ' of the same kind scattered 
through these epistles. But convincing as this detail is in itself, 
the same can hardly be said of its present setting. Holtzmann 
is sure that our Paulinist * never thought of a second imprisonment. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS loi 

In 2 Timothy there hovered before his mind the situation Acts 
xxviii. 30 f. (H. PB. p. 51,) So far we may agree. But then 
there must also have hovered before his mind in this connexion 
the situation Acts xx 13 f., when Paul was last at Troas. On 
that occasion the Apostle set out alone towards the end of April 
(Ramsay, Paid the Traveller, p. 289), to walk to Assos, where he 
joined the ship in which his companions had meanwhile sailed 
from Troas. Now, about the previous midsummer, when he left 
Troas in the opposite direction (2 Cor. ii. 12 f., cf. i Cor. xvi. 8), it 
was as natural for him to leave his heavy cloak behind, as it was 
for him to claim it again before the winter storms began (p. 117 ff.). 
But on Holtzmann's theory the inventor of this realistic touch 
spoiled it by requiring his readers to suppose (rt:) that Paul let slip 
the natural and obvious opportunity to send his property by the 
ship in charge of Luke or another, and {b) that he then allowed 
it to lie unclaimed at the house of Carpus through four long 
winters, only to send for it now in his last hours against that fifth 
winter which he knew he would not live to see. Considered as 
fiction, our Personalia would seem to lose more than they gain in 
verisimilitude from the necessity for such assumptions. 

No, Holtzmann's view shares at this point with the Traditional 
opinion a certain prima facie simplicity, which, however, proves on 
closer examination to be illusory, and involves us more and more 
deeply, the further we follow it, in hopeless entanglements. We 
are prepared for the inevitable blunders of the ordinary dull 
secondary writer, who tries in vain to put himself into another 
man's place, and betrays himself at every turn by ineptitudes, 
inconsistencies, and contradictions. Nor have we any rooted 
prejudice against the hypothesis of a second-century Christian 
possessing very high gifts of creative imagination. But two such 
persons rolled into one, and then identified with the author of the 
rest of the Pastorals, make too complex a personality altogether. 
The mental agility which needed no second imprisonment theory 
to provide time for a certain development in style, diction, &c., 
but could leap at a moment's notice, between one dip of the pen and 
another, from the very tone, speech, and accents of the Apostle to 
the current phraseology of the early second century and back 
again — taxes our credulity beyond the breaking-point. If five 
years were not enough for such a change, still less five minutes ! 



loz PAULINE ELEMENTS 

We conclude therefore that modern scholarship is right in 
refusing with one voice, though for a variety of reasons, to regard 
these Personalia as pure fiction invented by the aiictor ad 
Timotheuin et Titiim in order to lend verisimilitude to the rest of 
his handiwork. 

And we turn back accordingly to consider those remaining 
alternatives one of which Holtzmann dismissed, as we have seen, 
too lightly. We speak of alternatives. But according to many 
scholars there is only one remaining alternative. If Paul wrote 
these personal references himself, and if there is no single moment 
in his known life at which he could have written them, they 
argue, then it must follow, as the night the day, that he must 
have written them at some later period than that known to us 
from Acts and the other Paulines. In other words, these verses 
presuppose, and are a primary witness for, that very release, 
eastern journey, and second imprisonment on which, as is now 
agreed with almost complete unanimity among 'conservative' 
scholars, the ' authenticity ' of these epistles depends. 

The objections to this solution in either of its forms — whether 
as involving the genuineness of the entire three Pastorals, or only 
that of these Personalia — are as follows : 

3. The Second Imprisonment Theory and the Personalia 

in the Pastorals. 
(i) The Evidence of Ensebius. 

Our earliest explicit reference to such a second Roman im- 
prisonment following a period of release, occurs in Eusebius, some 
260 years after an event, or series of events, which, if they really 
took place, were of the very first importance and deepest interest 
to the Christian Church as a whole, and must, especially on the 
modern hypothesis, have been widely known both in the East and 
in the West, and of course in Rome itself. That our knowledge of 
Peter's last years is equally hazy^ is true enough, but hardly 
removes the difficulty. However, ' all things come to him who 
waits,' and at last in A. D. 324 we find the statement {H. E. ii. 
22), following a reference to the close of Acts : * At that time, 
then, after making his defence, he is said (Aoyoy e'xet) to have 

^ Harnack, ^r.Z. i, p. 240. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 103 

been sent again on the ministry of preaching, and having entered 
the same city (Rome) a second time, to have ended his life with 
martyrdom. While a prisoner in bonds he writes the Second 
Epistle to Timothy, in which he mentions both his former 
defence and his imminent end. Receive his own testimony on 
these points.' Then follows a quotation and exposition of 2 Tim. 
iv. 16 f , 6, IT, in which it is argued that the ' first defence ' implies 
a previous captivity. ' Thus much we have said to show that 
the Apostle's martyrdom w^as not accomplished during that 
sojourn of his at Rome in which Luke wrote.' 

There is thus no doubt that by the end of the first quarter of the 
fourth century ' it was said ', and Eusebius believed it, and argued 
for it, that Paul entered on a new lease of life, and a new stage 
of preaching activity, after the imprisonment recorded in Acts 
xxviii. 

Now Eusebius has preserved many a priceless record of historic 
fact which would otherwise have been lost to lis — but also many 
a baseless legend. The question is, to which category the state- 
ment before us belongs. For, judged by modern standards, it is 
clear that ' his judgement was decidedly inferior to his erudition '} 

We look to see whether in this instance, as in so many others, 
he is able to support his own statement by a quotation from, or 
at least a reference to, some earlier authority. But there is 
nothing of the kind here. The only evidence that he can, or 
at any rate does, produce, is a bit of more than questionable 
exegesis from one of the very epistles whose authenticity is now 
supported in turn by reference to his statement. The allusion to 
a 'first defence' 2 Tim. iv. 18 clearly implies a 'second defence'. 
We shall show in due course where and when and in what cir- 
cumstances both first and second defences were made (p. 121 f). 
But that it also implies an acquittal by Caesar, release, and 
second Roman imprisonment, with an interval of from three to 
five years between, crowded wath apostolic activities, journeys 
to Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia, and Crete, is hardly a tenable 
proposition. 

But if Eusebius and those who follow him in this matter are 
utterly wrong in their exegesis here, we are thrown back for the 
rest upon the phrase Xoyoy ex^i, with which he introduces the 
^ Bright, JfUr. to the H. E. 1872, p. xlvi. 



104 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

whole story. What exactly does this phrase cover ? How much 
can we legitimately infer from it? As the words are in them- 
selves so elastic and capable etymologically of such varied shades 
of meaning, it seems worth while to inquire in what other 
passages they recur. The result is not very encouraging for 
those who wish to lay any stress on the historicity of this 
particular incident. Eusebius uses the same formula to introduce 
(a) the legend that Philo had familiar conversation with St. Peter 
in Rome during the days of Claudius (//. E. ii. 17); {3} the 
tradition that the body of Ignatius was devoured by wild beasts 
(//. E. iii. 36)— the only evidence produced, in this case also, 
being that of Ignatius himself (in Rom. 4 f.) ; (c) the opinion that 
Tatian was the founder of the Encratite heresy (//. E. iv. 28) — ' a 
sect which existed before his time ' (Harnack, Enc. Brit.^ s. v. 
Tatian) ; {d) the legend of the Thundering Legion {H. E. v. 5, 
twice over in this connexion) ; {e) the story that Pantaenus 
found in India the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, which had been 
brought thither by the Apostle Barnabas (//. E. v. 10). 

(ii) Once this extension of Paul's life on the strength of 3 Tim. iv. 
16 f. had thus won a place in 'history', it was only natural that 
later writers should perpetuate the same error. So Jerome, de 
Vir. III. V, who also repeats the story about Philo and Peter, ib. 
II; Theodoret, UisL Eccl. ii. 22 and Comment, ad comma 17 
alteriiis ad Tim. cpist. ; Epiphanius, ConU'a Carp. Haer. vii. 6 ; 
Chrysostom, Euthalius (interval of ten years between the two 
imprisonments ! Zacagni, 532, Zahn, Einl. \. 453), Nicephorus 
Callisti, Eccl. Hist. ii. 33 f., who incorporates large sections of the 
text of Eusebius, and places not only i Tim. and Titus but also 
the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, Philippians, 
Thessalonians, as well as Trpoy 'lovSaiovs ( = Heb.) and Romans 
in the later period thus gained in Paul's life. 

Of course these additional links add nothing whatever to the 
strength of the chain as a whole. 

(iii) We have now therefore to turn back and examine the 
series of highly debatable inferences and deductions upon which 
this hypothesis of a second imprisonment really depends, in the 
absence of any definite statement or explicit reference to it in 
any Church writer prior to Eusebius. 

The principal elements in this series are : 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 105 

A. The argument from the Chronology of Paul's life. 

B. The evidence of Clement and of the Muratorian canonist. 

C. The evidence of the Personalia in the Pastorals. 

A. Chronology. First and foremost comes the argument from 
chronology, or rather, from two rival and mutually contradictory 
chronologies — the usual conservative scheme, which brings Paul 
to Rome for the first time in A. D. 60/61, and fixes his death as 
late as (id/"], and Harnack's own scheme^ which brings Paul to 
Rome as early as 56/7 and fixes his death in 64. 

The one point in common between these two schemes is that 
both leave an interval of five or six years between the close of 
Acts and the death of Paul, to be filled up somehow. 

For the rest, all the weight of learning and force of conviction 
brought to bear in defence of either theory must needs go to 
weaken the other, making it the more difficult for us to regard 
an inference drawn from either of them as being, in the present 
state of our knowledge, 'an assured fact of history'. The truth 
is that the chronology of Paul's life is an enormously difficult and 
intricate subject, covering an immense amount of ground, and 
one on which experts are still far from having arrived at an 
agreement.^ A minute examination of the relevant data would 
carry us far beyond the scope of the present work ; but one or 
two vital points can and must be mentioned here. 

It is not by any means an agreed matter among competent 
authorities that Paul's death should be set as late even as the year 
64. After describing, in the famous passage to which we shall re- 
turn presently, the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, Clement goes on 
in his next chapter to tell how ' to these there was gathered a great 
multitude of the elect, who suff'ered many and dire torments and 
set us the noblest of examples '. It certainly looks as if Clement 
were here referring to the Neronic persecution of A. D. 64 as 
something that happened after the deaths of Peter and Paui. 
(So e. g. Moff"att, /. A^. T., p. 417.) This would, indeed, as Moffatt 
says, clinch the matter. 

But apart from any such consideration, even supposing that 
Paul did live on for several years after the ' two years ' of un- 

* Chronologie der altchristlichcn IJiieratur, 1897, i, p. 240 n. 
' See the very learned and thorough article by C. H, Turner in Hastings, 
D. B.y for a strong criticism of Harnack's dates. 



io6 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

hindered preaching and teaching in the hired lodging at Rome 
(Acts xxviii. 30), it would not by any means follow that he must 
have been released, still less that he must have gone on to Spain 
or back to the Aegean. We are aware of no valid objection to 
the view, that the actual sequel to the a/ccoXi^rcoy with which 
Acts closes, was a period of closer confinement, in which the 
Apostle was no longer allowed the same freedom to preach, but 
had to be content with the thought that others were doing so, 
and that the Word at any rate was still ' not bound '. While 
holding that this was in all probability the actual course of events 
for a short period, at the end of which Paul met his death, we see 
no reason for setting any narrow or rigid limit to this final period 
of real imprisonment. Whether the term of Paul's life after the 
close of Acts was long or short, it is easier to understand our 
lack of information about it, if he was immured in some Roman 
prison cell, than on the assumption that he was at large, travelling 
to and fro, revisiting old churches, founding new ones, introducing 
new methods of Church organization, engaging in new contro- 
versies, and adding fresh and important chapters to the story of 
his apostolic labours — chapters that, by a cruel fate, were never 
written down with pen and ink, or if so written were forthwith 
lost beyond recall. 

Then there is the fact, which Harnack himself admits is at 
least ' worth mentioning ', that in his Farewell to the Ephesian 
elders at Miletus (Acts xx. !^5, 38), Paul is reported to have said, 
' I know that ye all . . . shall behold my face no more'. The 
usual conservative explanation of this passage is that Paul's 
foreboding was not bound to be realized. But in that case, it 
seems strange that the author of Acts, writing after the event, 
should have failed to convey the least hint that Paul's forecast, 
and the sorrow and tears which it caused, had a happier sequel 
than he anticipated at the time. Zahn sees this difficulty, but 
sees also a way of escape, ovk^tl, he assures us, does not imply 
' never again ', but only ' not for a while '. It does not exclude 
the possibility that a time may yet come when the Apostle will 
resume his intercourse with the churches of Asia [Einl. i, p. 448). 
But surely the passionate grief of Paul's friends, and the way in 
which the whole pathos of the story is centred in this hard word, 
forbid any such softening interpretation. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 107 

B. Next we have the statement by Clement of Rome that 
Paul, having taught the whole world righteousness, came to the 
rep/xa r^y Svaeco^ and having borne witness (fiapTvpijcrai) before 
the rulers, so found his release from this world, and departed to 
the holy place (v. 5-7). This phrase to repfxa Trjs 8va€(o^ is 
translated 'boundary of the West', or of the Western world, 
as regarded from the point of view of a Roman, i. e. Spain. 
But while repfxara in the plural might conceivably bear this 
unusual meaning, the natural, proper, and usual meaning of this 
word is rather the starting-point or winning-post of a race, or the 
end of a journey, especially the race of life.^ And that this is the 
meaning here is rendered all the more likely by the fact that 
the whole context is full of the figure of the apostolic athlete 
running his great race for the immortal prize in the stadium of 
the world. Note the dOXrjrds v. i, rjOX-qaav v. 2, ^pa^eTov v. 5, 
KTjpv^ V. 6, KXeos v. 6, Spofiov . . . yepa^ vi. 2, and finally the eu 
yap T(p avTco iap.ev aKccfifxari, kol 6 avrb^ -qjilv dycbv kirLK^LTaL 
vii. I. Now the goal of this race was certainly not Spain, but 
Rome, from whatever point in the world-stadium one happened 
to be regarding it. r?;? Bvcr^cos is a defining Genitive, Western 
goal, or, goal in the West as opposed to its starting-point in the 
East. There is no need to understand avrov, though we think 
with Schmiedel (E. B. 4600) and others that it would have been 
perfectly good Greek to omit it here. Nor was there any need 
to add Tov Spofiov, nor any other explanatory words, which would 
have made an awkward double Genitive. The meaning is clear 
enough without any such addition. 

If the phrase and its general context favour this interpretation, 
the immediate continuation of the sentence seems to demand it. 
For in spite of anything that can be urged to the contrary ,2 it 
plainly suggests that Paul reached his final goal, bore his martyr- 
witness, and so [ovrays) found his release from this world, all at 

^ e. g. Pindar, Pyih. ix. 202, Soph. El. 686 f. Spo/xov ra Ttpnara. Cf. Stephanus, 
Thes. s. V. '. . . quamvis aliquid inter Tepfxa et KafxnTTjp esse discriminis videatur ; 
ita scribente Polluce 3, C. 30 [§ 147] Trepl 8e 6 KiipTTTovai, vva-an k. Knpnrijp' iva 
de TvavovTai, reXoy k. reppa ktX.' Eur. Hipp. I40 rppa lixTji: . . . = metam qua 
victoria terminata est. Find. Isthm. iii. 85 ripp ai'dXwv, Simonides, ^kWov ttotI 
Tf'pan, Aesch. Prom. 284 jippa Kf\ev6ov, Soph. Aj. 48, &c. Soph. O. C. 725 
Tf ppa Ttjs (TooTrjplas, Eur. Andr, I081 yrjpas npos reppaaiv, Hipp, 140 Qavinov 
Ttppa. 

^ Zahn, Ein/. i. 452. 



io8 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

the same place. The evident parallel between the two martyr- 
doms, Peter's (v. 4 ovtco /xapTvprjcra^ kiropevOr] e/y tov ronov . . .), 
and now Paul's (v. 7 kul /xaprvpijaa? . . . ovto)? . . . Kat inopfvOr] 
€is TOV ronov . . .) forbids us to make this second {lapTvprja-as 
refer to witness borne by the Apostle before some tribunal or 
other in Spain. There is not the shadow of a hint that between 
the eXdcov and the /xaprvprjcra^, or between that and the dTrrjXXdyr], 
there lay a whole long and important period of missionary 
journeyings East and West, fresh perils and escapes, new develop- 
ments of doctrine and of polity, &c. 

No ancient writer interprets Clement in the manner required 
by the modern conservative argument, nor quotes him in support 
of the release in general, or of the Spanish journey in particular. 

So, as Bartlet says,^ ' Clement goes over bodily to the other side '. 

Failing Clement, far more weight than it will carry is now 
thrown on the corrupt passage in the Muratorian fragment, with 
its reference in crabbed Latin to ' a departure of Paul from the 
City, when he departed for Spain'. This in turn is based, ac- 
cording to Zahn {Einl. i, p. 452), on the legendary Gnostic Acts 
of Peter (a.d. <:. 160-170). Nor is the origin of this Gnostic legend 
itself far to seek. In Romans xv. 24, 28 Paul had written of his 
intention to go on from Rome to Spain. For the type of mind 
with which we have here to do, nothing more was needed in the 
way of materials. The mythopoeic imagination could be trusted 
to do the rest. 

This does not exclude the possibility that others may have 
found their way, independently of heretical inventions, from the 
same starting-point to the same conclusion. Take, for instance, 
the remark of Athanasius that Paul ' did not shrink from going to 
Rome, nor from proceeding to Spain ' ^ or the similar expression 
in Cyril of Jerusalem.^ From either of these sentences it would 
be a very short step to the belief that the Apostle had actually 
done that which he aspired to do, or did not shrink from doing, 
especially as it is in each case coupled with an aspiration which 
was undoubtedly realized. 

C. One thing at least is absolutely certain — neither Clement 

'^ A. A. 1907, p. 202. ^ Ep. ad Dracontium^ 4. 

* Catech. xvii. 13 Ka7-f/;(/j(ra»'Ta hi Kai rqv 'Pafirjv kcu fiexP'- STrari'ur rrjv npodvfiiav 
TOV KtjpCyfiaros (KTiivavTa. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 109 

nor the Fragmentist nor any other ancient writer has a word to 
say about any eastern journey of the Apostle subsequent to his 
' first ' Roman imprisonment. Yet apart from such a journey 
neither a Spanish journey nor a second imprisonment avail in the 
least to provide room for these Personalia, let alone the whole 
three epistles. The sole evidence for that eastern journey consists 
in an inference drawn by Harnack, Zahn, and their followers from 
the two premises {a) that the Personalia in a Tim. and Titus are 
genuine, and {b) that Paul cannot have written them at any one 
moment in his earlier life. Apart from that inference it is safe 
to say that the whole theory of a release, eastern journey, and 
second imprisonment would not for very long remain standing 
on the other two feet of Harnack's tripod, the arguments from 
(i) chronology and (2) Clement's ripp-a rrjs 8vaea>^ and the Frag- 
mentist's Spanish visit. 

But granting these premises (a) and (/5), does any such conclusion 
really follow ? On what grounds are we obliged to suppose that 
these disjointed sentences were all written at the same time or 
from the same place ? Why should they not have been written 
indeed by Paul, but at different times ? This is the alternative 
possibility to which Holtzmann and Harnack and Zahn, with 
their respective followers, hardly seem to have given adequate 
attention. And it is precisely this omission which vitiates alike 
the pure-fiction theory and the second imprisonment theory, and 
with this, incidentally, the whole modern case for the * authenticity ' 
of the Pastorals. 

For it is just here, so the great majority of ' liberal ' critics 
believe, that the true solution of our problem is to be found. 
Several brief personal notes addressed by the Apostle at various 
times to one or another of his friends, are preserved by them, and 
are still in existence half a century or so after his death. These are 
eventually copied out from the scattered scraps of papyrus on to 
a single sheet, either by our author himself or by some other scribe, 
and so incorporated at the end of his first two epistles. They would, 
presumably, come into his hands without explanatory notes or 
headings of any kind to show the actual circumstances of their birth. 
How was he to discover, what has escaped the notice of devout 
readers for eighteen centuries, including many scholars ancient and 
modern ? It would have needed a method of study quite foreign 



no PAULINE ELEMENTS 

to the early second century, to have deduced from a minute 
comparison of the internal evidence with the data provided by 
Acts and the other Paulines, that we have here references not to 
any one situation, but to several, at intervals varying from a few 
weeks to some years. 

We have now reached the very crux of our argument, in so far 
as the Pauline authorship of these epistles can be said to stand 
or fall with the success or otherwise of the attempt to find a place 
for them within the lifetime of the Apostle. And we shall find 
that this 'argumentum Achilleum . . . chronologicum ', as Ginella 
called it (1865, p. 109) does indeed lay bare a vulnerable heel to 
the shafts of criticism. 

We shall see (pp. 115 ff.) that for every personal reference in the 
paragraphs with which we have just been dealing, there is at least 
one moment in Paul's life as known to us from Acts and the 
other Paulines, which fits it like a glove. Some of these items 
simply corroborate what we knew already. Others add to our 
knowledge some extremely interesting detail which no ingenuity 
could ever have deduced from our other sources, but which, now 
that we have it, harmonizes admirably with all the rest of our 
information. 

Yet on the second imprisonment theory in either of its forms 
all this is mere coincidence — a somewhat lengthy and compli- 
cated string of accidents, but nothing more. Not one of these 
notes, it seems, refers to the occasion which suits it so perfectly ; 
but they one and all refer really to similar occasions which 
recurred during this alleged extension of Paul's life — for all of 
which they are in turn the principal evidence, and, for a large 
and crucial part of it, the only evidence. That is to say, the 
judgement that they cannot be fitted into Paul's earlier life is 
the only positive ground for asserting that Paul ever visited 
Nicopolis, Corinth, Troas^ Miletus, or the shores of the Aegean, 
after he had once reached Rome. But that judgement is now 
shown to be erroneous. They can be fitted into the earlier life, 
provided only that we give up the vain and needless attempt to 
force them all into the same situation. 

That being so, what becomes of the inference drawn from this 
erroneous judgement? As an inference it falls to the ground. 

But it may still be maintained as an independent hypothesis ! 



PAULINE ELEMENTS in 

We do not know, say its advocates, that Paul died at the end of 
the first Roman imprisonment.^ The onus of proof rests, they 
claim, on those who deny his release. This denial is itself ' mere 
hypothesis ' (so Zahn, Einl. N. T. i. 439). In the absence of 
positive proof that Paul did not, subsequently to his arrival in 
Rome, visit Macedonia, Corinth, Troas, Miletus, Crete, and 
Nicopolis, who shall forbid us to assume that he did, and so 
provide a new framework into which all these Personalia can then 
be fitted without further difficulty ? Given these extra pages, 
blank pages, at the end of Paul's life-story, why not write on 
them the required journeys, labours, and incidents ? 

But before taking this step, let us at least see clearly what follows. 
In that case history must have repeated itself with a vengeance ! 

1. On this new eastern journey also, Erastus remains for some 
reason at Corinth. Once again Paul visits Troas with Timothy 
and Trophimus as his companions. Once more he leaves Troas 
if not alone and on foot in summer, at least again in circumstances 
which make it natural for him to leave his heavy cloak and other 
impedimenta behind. Only now we must suppose that months, 
instead of weeks, elapse before he claims them again. Once more 
they touch at Miletus. 

2. Coming to more recent memories, in this imprisonment, 
as in the first, mischief has been made by Jews from Asia, led 
apparently by the same Jew from Asia. Alexander has been 
nursing his old grudge year in, year out, and not content with 
having used his influence with his fellow Jews at Ephesus and 
at Jerusalem to Paul's detriment, has dogged his steps to Rome, 
and has been successful in pulling the strings not only of Jewish 
but of Roman justice, in the imperial city itself, and before the 
supreme tribunal. Not only Ananias, but Nero has lent an ear to 
this Jewish coppersmith, and become the tool of his spite. 

A second time Paul has had as his recent prison-companions 
Luke, Mark, Tychicus, Timothy, and Demas. Once again he 
has sent Tychicus to Ephesus. Mark, whose arrival the Colos- 
sians are told to expect. Col. iv. 10, and who has already dis- 

' ' It is true that the Pastoral Epistles imply a period of activity in Paul's 
life of which we have no other evidence : but neither is there any evidence 
against it, our ignorance being here complete.' Hort, Jud. Christianity^ 
p. 130 f. 



iia PAULINE ELEMENTS 

appeared from Paul's company in Phil, is now recalled apparently 
from the same neighbourhood. And the epithet ^v\p-q(TTo^ which 
Paul applied in that first imprisonment to another renegade who 
had lived down his defection (Philem. ii), is now applied in this 
second imprisonment to Mark, not, as we think, shortly afterwards 
while the phrase (with its somewhat subtle association of ideas) 
was still fresh in his mind, but from three to five years later. 
Timothy who was to be sent away at the end of the first im- 
prisonment, now near the end of the second, is again at a distance, 
and just as Paul had then intended that Timothy should soon 
return with comforting tidings (Phil. ii. i8), so now we find him 
recalled to the Apostle's side. Luke ' the beloved physician ' 
(Col. iv. 14) is still faithful to the last. 

Nor is the parallel confined to the outward circumstances of 
the Apostle. It extends to the very changes in his frame of mind, 
his alternating moods of buoyant hopefulness and dark forebodings 
(not for himself, but for the loyalty of his friends). The feeling 
of loneliness and isolation expressed in Phil. ii. 20 f , and the 
lack of any mention of the names of companions as still with him, 
has its counterpart here in the statements ' only Luke is with me', 
' Demas has forsaken me ', &c. Once again Paul exults that 
while he is bound, the Word of God runs free. Once again, as 
the end draws near, Paul is conscious of a change for the worse 
in his situation ; his once numerous band of comrades dwindles, 
and only one or two can be utterly trusted. The rest, those 
whom he has not sent away on missions, show signs of uneasiness 
and concern for their own safety, Phil. ii. 23, 2 Tim. iv. 9. 

In Phil. ii. 17 he sees his own life being poured out as a 
libation on the altar of sacrifice — either ^ as a sequel so certain, 
or a hypothesis so ' vividly before his eyes ' as to seem a present 
fact, or else ^ as a process actually begun in the ' drain of 
vitality ' resulting from the privations of his long imprisonment 
and the drawn out strain of suspense. — In either case it suggests 
a process whose final consummation is still in the future, and 
(should all go well, as it may, at his trial) in the indefinite 
future. He is * not yet ' made perfect, * not yet ' within reach of 
the prize {ov\ on ^Srj 'iXa^ov, rj rjSrj reTcXeicofiai, iii. 12). 

But now he says rjSr) ayreuSonai, and this time it is clear that 
^ Lightfoot, ad loc. 2 c h. Dodd in a letter to the present writer. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 113 

in his mind the process is as good as finished. The last drops 
of that red wine are being spilled. In the continuing metaphors 
we have one perfect tense after another. This really is the end. 
The die is cast. No ' hypothesis ', but grim, glorious certainty. 
The issue no longer hangs in the balance. The long expected 
opportunity of opportunities has come, — is at the door (icpecmjKey, 
cf. the kiria-TaraL alcpuiSios in I Thess. v. 3). Then he was 
longing for the time to come when he should receive the 
summons to weigh anchor, and put out to sea on that last 
voyage, when he should see his Pilot face to face, Phil. i. 23 ttjv 
€Tri6vfiLay e)(&)r eh to dvaXvaai koI avv XptcrTM eivac. Now the 
call has come, the anchor is weighed, and the moment of his 
departure has arrived — 6 /catpoy rrj? di^aXva-ew? fxov e(pia-rr]K€y. 
Then he was still running his unfinished race for the prize, with 
eyes set on the mark (Phil. iii. 11 fif., iv. i), now the race is over, 
and all that remains is for an Umpire more just than Caesar to 
confer the crown of victory. In Col. i. 5 he had spoken of the 
hope stored up {dTTOKeifxevriv) in heaven, and now he knows that 
the reward of faithfulness is indeed stored up for him (avro/ceirat). 
Now assuming that all this was really written by Paul shortly 
after he wrote Philippians, nothing would be more natural than 
this repetition of the figures which had then been foremost in his 
mind— with just the very difference which we find, that what 
was there a future possibility is now a present or accomplished 
fact. But on the second imprisonment theory we have to 
believe that Paul kept firmly fixed in his mind this whole series 
of figures, some of them very rare (we might say, unique), for 
several years on end, crowded years, of intense activity and of 
marked development both in outlook and vocabulary, and that 
his last word at the end of this second captivity was just a 
repetition of the same sentiments in the same words as he had 
used in his letter to the Philippians at the end of the first. It 
does not seem very likely. As Bacon says : * To the martyr also 
there sometimes comes an unexpected reprieve. Years after he 
may utter a second time his last farewells. But that which, 
under such circumstances, he will not do, is to return to his 
former leave-taking, and, with no reference to having used the 
figure before, borrow thence the phraseology for his parting 
legacy' {N. T.L, p. 134). 

2395 I 



114 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

Some conservatives have inclined in recent years to minimize 
this impression of a close resemblance between the two captivities. 
According to Spitta (1H93, p. 106), * the two imprisonments are 
in fact as unlike to one another as the epistle to the Philippians 
and 2 Timothy, and as like as one imprisonment generally is to 
another '. We confess our total inability to square this verdict 
with the facts just pointed out. The truth is rather that Paul's 
second Roman imprisonment, if he ever had a second, must have 
been in an astounding number of details an exact duplicate of 
the first. 

This was recognized even by orthodox scholars in days when 
the admission was not known to be so dangerous as it is to the 
traditional opinion. ' How remarkable it is ', exclaims good Paul 
Anton in the year 1727, commenting on 2 Tim. ii. 9, 'that when 
Paul was brought to Rome for the first time ... he was chained, 
but the Gospel was not chained (Acts xxviii. 16-31) ... in 
this second imprisonment also, when he is again bound, ... he 
could again say here the same thing.' It is indeed remarkable ! 
And the resemblance goes, as we have seen, far beyond anything 
that he pointed out. One, two, half a dozen points of contact 
between the two imprisonments we might have accepted without 
a word. But as the number of them increases, the odds against 
the recurrence of them all increase also in something more than 
a geometrical progression. The total number of these points of 
contact is between thirty and forty. It is in fact hardly less than 
the entire series. It may be too much to say that such a thing 
is impossible. But it is, to say the least, wildly improbable. 

But even so, does it save us ? On the contrary, this last 
desperate expedient proves on examination to be no way of 
escape from all our difficulties. It only leads us into yet further 
entanglements. ' Only Luke ' is with the Apostle, yet ' Eubulus, 
Linus, Pudens, Claudia, and all the brethren' send greetings. 
Paul is already being offered, and the time of his departure has 
arrived. Nothing remains for him but the crown of righteousness. 
Yet, with the light of that great Hereafter on his face, and its 
glory already dawning on his soul, he stops to pen a message to 
Timothy somewhere in the heart of Asia Minor, bidding him 
first make careful arrangements for the preservation of the 
genuine apostolic teaching from generation to generation. He 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 115 

is to appoint as officers charged with this duty, faithful men who 
shall be capable of teaching others also (i. 2) ; he must take care 
that these are themselves thoroughly grounded in the Truth, 
warning them against certain doctrinal errors which will spread 
after Paul is gone, and preparing them to recognize and resist 
these when the time comes. After he has done all this, Timothy 
is to set off on his journey to Rome, pick up Mark, presumably 
at Colossae (Col. iv. 10), call at Troas for cloak, &c., and make 
haste to bring them all along before the winter. 

If we are to take that noble and impressive farewell seriously, 
he must have known that it was a physical impossibility for 
Timothy to carry out these commissions until too late. And if 
we are to take the commissions seriously, they compel us to 
suppose that in that farewell Paul exercised a mental reservation 
which would rob it of half its impressiveness and pathos. Paul 
could perfectly well have written both — Farewell (2 Tim. iv. 
5 ff.) and twofold Summons (iv. 9, 21) — but not at the same 
time, nor as parts of the same letter. 

Not even with the help of a second imprisonment, then, — not 
even if we assume, without a shred of evidence, that Paul returned 
from Rome to the Aegean, — do we get rid of the inner contradic- 
tions between one personal detail and another in 2 Timothy. 
Those contradictions are inherent in the supposition that these 
details were originally all of a piece and belong to one set of 
circumstances. But this supposition is vital to the second im- 
prisonment theory. 

That theory therefore, it would seem, must fall to the ground; 
and the possibility that Paul might have written every word of 
the Personalia, at different times and places, though not at any 
one time or place, is the heel of that Achilles, 

3. TJie Five Genuine Notes, their Several Dates, 
Birthplaces, atid Oecasions} 

(i) Titus iii. 12-15. Paul writes from Western Macedonia, 
several months after 2 Cor. x-xiii, and before 2 Cor. i-ix, 
bidding Titus, who is at Corinth, be ready to join him in Epirus. 

' For an account of previous 'Partition Theories' see Moffatt, H. N. T. 
pp. 700 ff., /. N. T., pp. 403 ff. 

I 2 



ii5 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, give diligence to 
come unto me to Nicopolis : for there I have determined to winter. 
Set forward Zenas the lawyer and ApoUos on their journey diligently, 
that nothing be wanting unto them. And let our people also learn to 
maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. . . . 

All that are with me salute thee. Salute them that love us in faith. 
Grace be with you all. 

Some months before Paul left Ephesus for the last time, he 
explained to the Corinthians ^ his intention to pay them an ex- 
tended visit, and possibly spend the winter among them, after 
first passing through Macedonia. Apparently they were expect- 
ing him to take Corinth first, on his way to Macedonia, and then 
again on his way to Jerusalem. But, gladly as he would have 
given them the double 'benefit' (2 Cor. i. 15), that plan would 
involve, in the first instance, a hasty visit {iv 7rap68a>), which, at 
the present critical juncture (dprL), he was anxious to avoid. 
Meanwhile Timothy might be coming, with others, and if so, 
they must not let any one ' despise ' him. Paul had done his 
utmost to persuade Apollos to join this company ; but ApoUos 
declined. He would come, however, on the next convenient 
opportunity. It was soon made only too clear that the disaffec- 
tion at Corinth was even more serious than Paul had realized. 
Certain persons had taken full advantage of their opportunities, 
while his back was turned, to disparage his work and undermine his 
influence. Much against his will, and to the detriment of urgent 
claims at Ephesus, he was forced to pay a flying visit to Corinth,^ 
only to find that he might as well have spared himself the 
trouble. The time was too short, and the mischief had gone too 
far. His enemies had not struck without first making sure of 
support. Remarks like those quoted in 2 Cor. x. 10 left him 
nothing to say, and nothing to do but withdraw. Deeply 
humiliated, and in great distress of mind, he returned to Ephesus, 
and wrote the letter mentioned in 2 Cor. ii. 4, 9, vii. 8. With 
the severity of injured love, it vindicated his good faith and 
authority. There are strong reasons for believing, with Moffatt 
(LN. T., pp. 116 ff.) and many others, that this 'intermediate 
letter ' is preserved in the last four chapters of our 2 Cor. The 

* I Cor. xvi. 6-12. 

* 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. I f. {rpirov tovto) . . . a>s Tzapcuv to 8fvTfpou. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 117 

jubilant assurance of his restored confidence (vii. 16) could hardly 
have been followed, in one and the same letter, by such expres- 
sions of profound mistrust as we find, e.g., in xii. 20 f. It was 
now the turn of Titus to try whether he could succeed, where 
Timothy and Paul himself had failed. Soon afterwards Paul 
left Ephesus. For the reason stated in 2 Cor. ii. i, he took the 
long northern route, resolved to enter Corinth for the third time, 
as soon as he could do so happily, — i. e., on hearing from Titus 
of the success of his efforts, — but not before (firj ndXiv kv Xvirt]). 
He had some hope of finding Titus at Troas (2 Cor. ii. 12 f.) ; 
but this zealous friend had not yet had time to carry out his 
difficult task ; so he missed that conditional appointment. Rest- 
less and distraught, Paul could not stay to take the opportunities 
opening up at Troas, but pushed on into Macedonia. There too 
he found no relief, but afflictions on every side, fightings without 
and forebodings within (vii. 5). This period of suspense must 
have lasted longer than is sometimes realized. For (a) in 2 Cor. 
ix. 2 Paul has boasted that Achaia had been ready with its 
collection ' for a year past ' [diro Trepvcn). Achaia was certainly 
not ready when he wrote i Cor. xvi. i f (5) He left Ephesus about 
Pentecost (i Cor. xvi. 8), and reached Jerusalem about Pente- 
cost in the following year (Acts xx. 16). That voyage took some 
seven weeks,^ and was preceded by the three months in Greece 
(Acts XX. 3), during which he arrived at Corinth, finished the 
collection, and wrote his Epistle to the Romans (xv. 25 f.), and 
the note to Ephesus (Rom. xvi).^ Allowing a month for the 
journey into Macedonia, we are left with at least six months 
during which his activities are summarized in Acts xx. 2. He 
made his way right across Macedonia, presumably by the Via 
Egnatia, pressing on that collection for the poor at Jerusalem, 
and proclaiming his gospel of divine comfort and immortal hope. 
At Dyrrachium we picture him looking out over the Adriatic 
towards where, beyond the western horizon, Rome beckoned. 
It was now only a step to Illyricum. Thus was realized his 
dream of 2 Cor. x. 15. While that faith, or fidelity, which had 

^ Ramsay, Pau/ the Traveller, pp. 289 ff. 

'^ With greetings to Prisca and Aquila and the Church at their house, 3 ff. 
Cf. I Cor. xvi. 19, and note (v) pp. 127, 134. On Rom. xvi. see Moffatt, 
/.A^. Z. p. 136. 



ii8 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

waned, was waxing again, he did in fact sow the good seed on 
virgin soil in ' regions beyond '. That he did not then simply 
retrace his steps, is already suggested by the kvkX(o (Rom. xv. 19) ; 
and this is confirmed, on our view, by the note before us, written 
about this time. How Titus kept this appointment, and was able 
to bring such good news as made up for many things, we read 
in 2 Cor. i-ix, written, perhaps at Nicopolis, under the great 
reaction of joy which followed his coming. We now learn that 
Apollos had found his convenient opportunity, and was at Corinth, 
on his way to some destination which we have no means of 
defining more closely. If now, notwithstanding the KeKpiKa 
(Titus iii. 12), Paul did after all spend part at least of that winter 
at Corinth, he would not this time be accused of having changed 
his mind too 'lightly' (2 Cor. i. 17). 

The diction of this note coincides with that of i Cor. xvi at 
too many points to leave room for doubt that it must have been 
written after no great interval, orai/, Trefiyjrco, npo? ae, (vfids), ^, 
e\6eiy npS^ lie, 7rapa\€Lfj.daaL, 'AttoWco, TTp6Trep.y^ov, Lva, fir), 
dcnvd^ovjai a€ [v/xa^), . . . 01. iravres, danaa-aL tov9 (f)L\ovvTas 
{^iXeT), T) xdpis jxerd Trdvrcov vfiaov together make a series which 
can hardly be dismissed as merely accidental. See further, for 
€K€T Rom. xvi. 24, KCKpiKa 1 Cor. vii. ;^'j, v. 3, ii. 2, airovBdaov 
2 Cor. viii. 16 f. (cnrovSrjy . . . a-TrovSaiorepo^ of Titus), dvajKalo^ 
I Cor. xii. 22, 2 Cor. ix. 5, xpeia^ i Cor. xii. i, &c., Rom. xii. 
13, aKapno^ T Cor. xiv. 14. 

(ii) 2 Tim. iv. 13-15, 20, 21a, Paul writes from Macedonia, 
after the visit to Troas mentioned in 2 Cor. ii. 12 f., bidding 
Timothy, who has returned to Ephesus, join him before winter. 

The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, 
and the books, especially the parchments. Alexander :the coppersmith 
did me much evil: the Lord will render to him according to his works : 
of whom be thou ware also ; for he greatly withstood our words. . . . 

Erastus abode at Corinth : but Trophimus I left at Miletus sick. Do 
thy diligence to come before winter. 

Shortly before Paul left Ephesus, he sent Timothy and Erastus 
into Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). Erastus must have gone on to 
Corinth, where Paul found him, on his own arrival from Nicopolis, 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 119 

holding a civic appointment such as fell to few Christians in 
those days, but not forgetful of his old friends at Ephesus 
(Rom. xvi. 33). 

In Acts xix. 23 fif., we read how Demetrius the silversmith 
gathered together the members of his own and allied guilds of 
metal-workers, and organized a protest against the interference 
with * our trade '. At this meeting Alexander is put forward by 
the Jews to explain that he and his friends have no sort of con- 
nexion with these Christians — quite the reverse! (dTroXoyelcrdaL) — 
but is shouted down by the angry crowd, to whom Jews and 
Christians were all one. This incident was not likely to diminish 
the hostility of Alexander and his party towards Paul and his 
friends, and they seem to have lost no time in making further 
trouble. Paul now in a few words informs Timothy of what 
happened in his absence, and warns him against this dangerous 
man, who is sure to take any chance that offers of proving his zeal 
at the expense of any friend of Paul. 

Not that Alexander would have confessed to any feeling so 
personal as a grudge. With the cold inhumanity of his kind, he 
would have protested that his action was dictated solely by 
' principle ', and was not directed against Paul and Timothy as 
men, but against their pernicious teaching (verse 15 Xiau yep 
dvri(TTT] roh rjixeripois Aoyoiy). Any suffering inflicted on the 
misguided individuals who were responsible for that teaching was 
of course not his fault. He only did his duty. Paul understands 
this perfectly. Was not he too once self-betrayed by the same 
sophistry? But he has learned to believe in a Justice which will 
not be deterred, by any protestations of lofty motive, from visiting 
oi^evil deeds their appropriate punishment. To that unerring 
justice he leaves this typical bigot, and meanwhile bids Timothy 
be on his guard. 

The only occasion on which Paul is actually recorded to have 
been at Miletus, was on the journey to Jerusalem. If it were 
necessary on that account to assume that he had never been there 
before, and that it was then that Trophimus fell ill, then verse 20, 
2ia must have been written at Patara, where Paul changed ships 
(Acts xxi. i), and his last port of call on the Asiatic mainland. 
This would leave just time for Trophimus to recover and join the 
Apostle before, or soon after, his arrival in Jerusalem Acts xxi. 29). 



lao PAULINE ELEMENTS 

For Luke tells us that Paul spent seven days at Tyre, one at 
Ptolemais, and several {nXeiovi) at Caesarea, not to mention 
the seven days at Jerusalem, during which, at the latest, Trophimus 
must have arrived. This fragment, 30, 21a, would thus stand 
alone, unless verses 12, 13 belonged to the same note. After the 
seven days at Troas (Acts xx. 4 ff.), Luke and others go round 
by sea, while Paul crosses by road to join them at Assos. 
Timothy, like Trophimus, was of the party that sailed to Troas ; 
but he is not named after this in Acts. Erastus stayed at 
Corinth, as Timothy must have known. It is possible, though 
not quite likely, that Paul forgot to send his cloak &c., in the 
ship. 

But it seems much more probable that he left that heavy 
winter-garment behind when setting out from Troas about mid- 
summer, the previous year, and that he sent for it from North- 
west Macedon about the same time as his note (i) to Titus, when 
thoughts of the coming winter were, as we know, in his mind. 

It is generally assumed that Paul sailed from Ephesus to Troas. 
But this is not' stated in our sources, and is less likely than it 
seems at first sight. For, a year later, anxious as he was to see 
his friends at Ephesus once more, he decided (KeKpiKei, Acts xx. 
16 f.) against putting in there, on the ground that, if he was to 
reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, he must not waste precious time 
{XpovoTpi^rja-aL). Instead, he sent for the Ephesian elders to meet 
him at Miletus. This meant for them a journey of about ^^ miles 
each way, by the shortest route, and for him a corresponding 
delay. It certainly would seem a curious method of saving 
time,^ but for a fact which is sometimes overlooked in this con- 
nexion. The port of Ephesus was always subject to one great 
natural drawback, which in the end proved its ruin. The channel 
between it and the sea was liable to become choked with silt 
brought down by the river Cayster.^ In Strabo's time (xiv. 34. 
p. 641) a breakwater, built in the reign of Attains II, had 
aggravated this tendency. The resulting obstruction of traffic 
must have been almost at its worst when Paul sailed for Syria. 
For it was only a few years later (A. D. 61-62) that Soranus, the 
energetic proconsul of Asia, cleared the channel and opened the 

' Ramsay, Paul the Tf-aveller, p. 295. ^ Ramsay, in D. B. i. p. 721 f. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 121 

harbour.^ This explains Paul's choice of Miletus as the most 
convenient — or least inconvenient — port for communication with 
Ephesus from the sea, and makes it highly probable that, on 
leaving Ephesus, eleven months earlier, he went first to Miletus, 
taking with him the Ephesian Trophimus. Down to the last 
moment he was hoping for some messenger (PErastus) to arrive 
with good news from Corinth. In that case he would gladly 
have crossed the Aegean forthwith. But it was not to be. In 
this instance ' no news ' was ' bad news '. With a heavy heart he 
left Trophimus to recover from his illness, and sailed to Troas. 
In the meanwhile Tiiriothy will have returned to Ephesus. He 
was again in Paul's company when 2 Cor. i-ix was written (i. i), 
and must therefore have received some message calling him to 
the Apostle's side. That message, if we are not mistaken, is now 
before us. Thus we may reasonably suppose that Paul got his 
warm cloak before that winter, and that, in writing 2 Cor. i-ix 
and Rom., he was able to use those very books and parchments 
which had lain for some few weeks at the house of Carpus. If 
the brief lines referring to Erastus and Trophimus were added 
as a postscript, either on the verso, or otherwise distinct from the 
rest of the note, this would explain their separation from it, and 
their insertion, with similar fragments, at the end of 2 Timothy. 

The following words are shared with Titus iii. 12 ff., 2 Cor. i-ix, 
and Rom., the nearest epistles in time, if our reconstruction be 
correct, — anovSacrov eXOeTf (Titus iii. 12), npo \eL^S)i'o^ (cf. Titus 
iii. 12 TTapa^eLjjLda-ai), rjfiiTepos (cf. Titus iii. 14, Rom. xv. 4), 
/xivo), dcrOei'io), 'ep\o/j.ai, noXXd, KaKa, diWpassijn, toTs ijip.-) XoyoL^ cf. 
Rom. iii. 4, 2 Cor. i. 18, hS^LKwixai Rom. ii. 15, 2 Cor. viii. 24, 
lUav (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 12 vnepXiav) drroScoaeL ktX. quoted 
Rom. ii. 6, (puXdcra-oo Rom. ix. 19, &c., dvOia-Trj/xi Rom. ix. 19, &c. 

(iii) 2 Tim. iv. 1 6-1 8a (?i8b). Paul writes from Caesarea, 
soon after his arrival under escort from Jerusalem : 

At my first defence no one took my part, but all forsook me : may 
it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me, and 
strengthened me ; that through me the message might be fully pro- 
claimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear : and I was delivered out 

^ Tacitus, Ann. xvi. 23 ' portui Ephesiorum aperiendo curam insumpserat '• 
See Furneaux's note, ad loc, and Waddington, Fasies des prov. asiat. 
pp. 134 40> on the date of this proconsulate. 



122 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

of the mouth of the lion. The Lord will deliver me from every evil 
work, and will save me unto his heavenly kingdom : (? to whom &c.). 

The 'first defence' refers to no Roman /W;«^ actio, — this was 
all still in the future — but simply to the events described in Acts 
xxii. I ff. {aKovcraTk /xov rrj^ Trpo? v/xa^ fvi/l ccTroXoyias). Luke's 
story entirely, if tacitly, bears out Paul's present statement, that 
of the brethren at Jerusalem none stood up for him on this 
occasion. At the second defence (xxiii. i) they apparently had 
no opportunity of doing so, even if they had wished or dared 
(xxii. 30). But, as Luke too tells us, the Lord stood by him in 
this time of peril, and assured him that his work on earth was not 
yet done. He need have no doubt that he will yet win through 
to the goal of his race, and the crowning opportunity to preach 
his gospel, at Rome (xxiii. 11 enio-ras avTa> 6 KvpL09 efvre ktX.). 

Verse 14 f., the reference to Alexander, might possibly belong 
to this note. For when Paul arrived at Jerusalem he was soon 
attacked by 'Jews from Asia' (Acts xxi. 27). Even without 
Paul's help we might perhaps have thought we could guess from 
what town in Asia this party hailed, and the name and trade of 
their leader ! 

If verse 18 belongs to this note, then Acts xxiii. 12 sq., the 
futile vow of the forty Jews, was a case in point of the sort of 
' evil work ' through which Paul was brought safely in fulfilment 
of his destiny. But as the deliverance which he there expects, 
is to set him ' in the heavenly kingdom ', it may be better possibly 
to include that verse in the letter written more than four years 
after this, on the eve of his martyrdom. See (v) pp. 126 ff. 

Paul may perhaps have written TrXrjpcodfj here, and in verse 5, 
as in Rom. viii. 4, not irXrjpofpopTjOfj, which in his epistles bears 
a different meaning (Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5, Col. iv. 12). 

The language of this note, like the situation, is much nearer to 
Romans than to any other epistle. We find airoXoyia 2 Cor. vii. 
II, aTToXoykop.ai Rom. ii. 15, kyKaraX^LTra) ix. 29, Xoyi^ofj.ai. 
iv. 3, 22, 7rapi(TTT] xvi. 2, kv8vvap.6ai iv. 20, 8l' efxov xv. 18, 
TO KTjpvyjxa xvi. 25, iva TrX-qpcoOfj viii. 4, cf. xv. 19, aKovaaxriv x. 
14, TToivTa ra edprj xvi. 26, epvcrOrju xv. 31 (lya pvcrOco ctTTo rmv 
dTreidovfTcop kv rfj 'lovSaia . . . 'lepovcraXrjp), (jTop-a iii. 14, &c. 

(iv) 2 Tim. iv. 9-12, 22b. Timothy is recalled to Rome, c, A. D. 
62. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 123 

Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me : for Demas forsook me, 
having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica ; Crescens 
to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, 
and bring him with thee : for he is useful to me for ministering. But 
Tychicus I sent to Ephesus. . , . Grace be with you. 

Timothy has presumably been to Philippi, as promised in Phil, 
ii. 19, 23, but instead of returning at once, has taken first the 
opportunity to visit his old home at Lystra. He now learns that 
his presence in Rome is urgently needed. Of all the little devoted 
band who were with the Apostle when he wrote Eph.-Col.-Philem., 
Luke ' the beloved physician ' alone remains. The rest are 
scattered. Demas (Philem. 24, Col. iv. 14) has broken down 
under the strain of imminent danger, and has gone to Thessa- 
lonica, the home of Aristarchus (Acts xx. 4). Mark, we gather, 
is at some place known to Timothy, through which Timothy 
would pass on his return journey. He must therefore have been 
sent thither during the interval between the dispatch of Col.- 
Philem. and Timothy's own departure from Rome. Now in Col. 
iv. 10 Paul mentions the fact that the Colossians were at that 
time already prepared for Mark to arrive in the near future. He 
confirms this expectation, and bespeaks for the nephew of Barnabas 
a kindly reception. There is no need then to look any farther 
for the place at which Timothy was to 'pick up Mark' on his 
way to Rome. Like Onesimus, Mark has lived down his former 
defection (Actsxiii. 13, xv. 37 fif.), and having been once dxpiia-To^, 
is now €V)(pr]crT09 . . . 'iva \xoi BiaKOvf^ kv toXs 8ecrfJ.oi9 rod evayyeXiov 
(Philem. 11 f.). Titus, of whom we last heard as having been 
^mmoned to Nicopolis (Titus iii. 12 f.), has evidently been across 
the Adriatic to visit Paul, and has now returned to continue his 
labours on the same coast (cf. p. 117 f).^ We know, and so did 
Timothy (Col. i. i), that Tychicus was sent to Ephesus (Col. iv. 7, 
Eph. vi. 21). He is now reminded of this fact in order to complete 
the enumeration of Paul's recent companions, and so to illustrate 
the Apostle's loneliness and need for the fellowship and ministra- 
tions of the few on whose loyalty to the last he can still rely. 



^ Cf. Tacitus, Ann. ii. 53 'honorem (consulatus) Germanicus iniit apud 
urbem Achaiae Nicopolim, quo venerat per lUyricam oram, visofratre Druso 
in Dalmatia agente' (W. J. Woodhouse, s. v. ' Dalmatia' in Enc. Bid.). 



134 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

There remain only Epaphras, Jesus Justus, and Aristarchus 
(Philem. 23 f., Col. iv. 10-13) to be accounted for. We have Paul's 
word for the intense anxiety which the first of these had been 
feeling as to the welfare of his own converts at Colossae, Laodicea, 
and Hierapolis, and in view of the complete confidence expressed 
by the Apostle in all three, it is difficult to believe that they were 
any of them with him when he wrote Phil. ii. 20 f. There is 
thus no need for us to fall back on the possible, though hardly 
probable, identity of Epaphras with the Epaphroditus who was 
sent to Philippi (ii. 25 f.), nor on the suggestion that the name of 
Aristarchus may have been omitted by some accident from the end 
of the present note. As it stands, this note in no way contradicts 
our previous information, but at various points confirms it, and at 
others supplements it with new and altogether convincing details. 

The diction of this note like the next, but unlike the first 
three, shows clear and special points of contact with the epistles 
of the Roman imprisonment. For anovSaaov cf. Eph. iv. 3, for 
Taxioi)9 Phil. ii. 19 (of Timothy), dyaTrda) Eph. vi. 6, &c., Col. iii. 12, 
&c., T. I'vi' alwua Eph. i. 21, ii. 2 {iv r. ala>vL tovto)), dfaXafx^dvco 
Eph. vi. 13, 16, fiovo? Col. iv. 11, Phil. iv. 15, and especially 
et'Xpjyo-ro? e/y BiaKovtav Philem. 11 ff. (euxp^o-Toy . . • fW ixol 
SLaKoufj), Col. iv. 17, Eph. iv. 12, and finally the benediction 
rj xdpis /J.€6' v/jloop = Col. iv. 18. 

This message reached Timothy too late. Soon after its 
dispatch, Paul made his final appearance before the Roman 
tribunal, and was condemned by an unjust judge to die. On the 
eve of his martyrdom, or perhaps on the very day, he wrote, — 

(v) his noble last letter and farewell to Timothy, in which he 
assures him of his complete confidence, bids him carry through 
to the end his task, as he, Paul, has now done ; and so breaks to 
him the news that they two will not meet in this world again. 
The references to Paul's early suft'erings and persecutions ' at 
Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra ', recall memories which will 
have been renewed by Timothy's recent visit to those familiar 
scenes. Hurrying back, as we may be sure the real Timothy 
would, on receipt of the summons (iv), and picking up Mark at 
Colossae, as instructed, he was met at Ephesus by this last message, 
which cancelled its predecessor, filled his heart with sorrow, and 
his eyes once more with tears, and gave him that commission, 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 125 

to the fulfilment of which the rest of his own life was de- 
voted. 

Our 2 Tim. consists of this last letter edited and brought up to 
date by the mictor ad Timotheimi, for the benefit of the less 
heroic Timothys of his own day, with the three earlier notes (ii, 
iii, and iv) tacked on at the end — perhaps under the genuine 
impression that they were postscripts to (v) — a mistake for which 
he, if it was he, need not be blamed, seeing that (i) it has been 
shared for eighteen centuries by Christian readers, who have seen 
no incongruity between these Personalia and the situation en- 
visaged in the bulk of the letter, (2) there were no explanatory 
notes on the documents before him, (3) his mistake, made in good 
faith, has led at least to the preservation of these priceless 
relics. 

In attempting to reconstruct this Farewell Letter, we are 
obviously confronted with still greater difficulties, and must 
proceed with the added caution and reserve which they demand. 
For our task is no longer, as in the previous notes, confined to 
the comparatively simple business of separating one genuine 
fragment from another, and assigning each to its appropriate set 
of circumstances. The situation here is clear enough. But we 
have now to disentangle the words and sentences of an original 
letter from additions and amplifications made by one who had 
prepared himself for his task by prolonged study of the Apostle's 
writings. That the letter before us consists of these diverse 
elements we are convinced, for the reasons already stated. But it 
would be idle to pretend that we can feel at all points the same 
confidence, that we do at certain points, of our ability to draw 
with precision the line between the real Paul and his editor. 

We have, for instance, not the slightest hesitation in believing 
the Onesiphorus paragraph (i. 16-18), and the glorious climax 
(iv. 6-8), to be as certainly the utterance of Paul himself as 
anything that has come down to us under his name. And we 
are equally confident that he never wrote, nor dictated, nor 
authorized, nor conceived, such a passage as ii. 23 — iii. 9 (see Text, 
Appendix IV). A good deal of chapter i seems to be clearly a 
cento of phrases culled from the ten Paulines. But we must 
frankly admit our inability to feel quite the same assurance, when 
it comes to deciding: 



ia6 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

(a) How much, if any, of the introductory greeting i. i f. was 
written by Paul on this occasion. That he had previously used 
every word of it, is obvious, especially if we may adopt the 
marginal reading of W. H. (Kvpiov 'It](tov Xpiarov). He calls 
Timothy his beloved child in i Cor. iv. 17, but in Philem. refers to 
his comrade of so many years as ' the brother '. At this moment 
of tender parting he might perhaps have reverted to the old 
affectionate description. We find icar' kirayy^Xiav Gal. iii 39 
(cf. Acts xiii. 23), but never before in the present sort of 
connexion. 

{b) The reference to Lois and Eunice (i. 5) might easily have 
been derived from contemporary traditions. Yet the language 
of this verse is free from phrases which could be traced to our 
genuine Paulines (unless we except ^apds irX-qpcodS), cf. Phil. ii. 2 
TrXrjpaxrare /xov r. ')(apdv). The only non-Pauline words are /xdfXfir], 
which presents no difficulty, and vTro/ivrjcns (elsewhere in the 
N. T. only in 2 Peter, twice). We have omitted the verse mainly 
because we can find no satisfactory way of connecting it with the 
certainly genuine paragraphs. 

(c) Other verses which come near the border-line are ii. i, 
iv. 2b. 

PAUL'S LAST LETTER 

The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus : for he oft 
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain ; but, when he was in 
Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant unto him 
to find mercy of the Lord in that day); and in how many things he 
ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest very well. 

But thou didst follow my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, long- 
suffering, love, patience, persecutions, sufferings ; what things befell me 
at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra ; what persecutions I endured : and 
out of them all the Lord delivered me. 

I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall 
judge the quick and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom ; 
preach the word ; be instant in season, out of season . . . 

Do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. 

For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come. 
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept 
the faith : henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, 
which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day : and 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 127 

not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing . . . 
to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus. . . . Eubulus 
saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. 
The Lord Jesus be with thy spirit. 

Written at Rome c. A. D. 62, on the eve of Paul's martyrdom, to 
meet Timothy at Ephesus on his way back from Lystra. 
The letter falls into four parts : 

I. Onesiphorus and his labour of love, i. 16-18. 

U. Timothy's own comradeship over a longer period. 
Divine protection in past perils, iii. lof. 

IIL A last charge laid on Timothy to carry on the great 
work, and finish his task, as Paul has finished his, 
iv. 1,2a, 5b. 

IV. The sure reward of faithful service, iv. 6-8. Doxology, 
last greetings, and benediction, iv. i8b, 19 21b, 22a. 

I. 

The letter begins with a grateful reference to services rendered, 
in Timothy's absence, by a friend from Ephesus, who had made 
it his business to seek out the prisoner of Tigellinus (Tac. Ann. 
XV. 51. 5) — not the easiest task in the world, nor the safest — and 
had found him in that closer confinement, to which he must 
have been transferred during or before his trial, from the hired 
lodging of Acts xxviii. 30. 

There is a great story behind Paul's brief but suggestive 
record of that search through Rome. We seem to catch glimpses 
of one purposeful face in a drifting crowd, and follow with 
quickening interest this stranger from far coasts of the Aegean, 
as he threads the maze of unfamiliar streets, knocking at many 
doors, following up every clue, warned of the risks he is taking 
but not to be turned from his quest ; till in some obscure prison- 
house a known voice greets him, and he discovers Paul chained 
to a Roman soldier. 

Having once found the way, Onesiphorus is not content with 



128 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

a single visit, but true to his name, proves unwearied in his 
ministrations. Others have flinched from the menace and 
ignominy of that chain : but this visitor counts it the supreme 
privilege of his hfe to share with such a criminal the reproach of 
the Cross. One series of turnings in the vast labyrinth he comes 
to know as if it were his own Ephesus. 

We can partly divine what these visits must have meant to 
one whose bodily powers, spent and broken by much privation, 
were in urgent need of such material comforts as Onesiphorus 
would not fail to bring. Still more as tokens of that love which 
' never faileth ', must they have refreshed a spirit jaded by 
suspense, disappointed and saddened by recent experience of 
cynical injustice and of craven disloyalty. 

For in those days his Roman citizenship had proved to be 
a worthless thing, and Roman justice a mockery. Once, when 
he was on his trial at Jerusalem, leading members of the Church 
there had not lifted a finger to help him. He had borne them no 
grudge for that.^ Now members of the Church at Rome, where 
he lay in graver peril, had been active in making of the very 
gospel a tool to injure his case. In that he had contrived to 
find reason for rejoicing.^ But that was not all, nor the worst. 
Some on whom he had thought he could rely to the uttermost, 
had failed him in these last critical days. Alarmed by ominous 
signs of coming storm, they had fled to a safe distance, proving 
only too conclusively that in their minds, after all, their own 
interests came first, and ' the things of Jesus Christ ' second. So 
Paul was left almost if not quite alone.^ For he had felt it right 
to send some others, besides Timothy, on errands of vital 
importance, setting the requirements of the kingdom, as' ever, 
before his own necessities (e.g. Mark, Col. iv. ii, and Epaphro- 
ditus, Phil. ii. 25). Lonely and tired and ill, he would not have 
been human if these desertions had not cut him to the quick. Yet 
of all this he now says not a word, but only speaks with 
passionate gratitude of the relief brought by this faithful friend. 

But Onesiphorus has paid his last visit. Paul does not say 
what has become of him. For others' sakes, as well as his own, 
the prisoner must be careful what he writes. Some things must 

1 p. 120 f. 2 Phil, j, i5^ jg, 3 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; Phil. ii. 20 f , p. 123. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 129 

always be left for a trusty messenger to tell by word of mouth.^ 
That he had taken many and great risks for Paul, and for the 
work of Christ, is certain. He who so risks his life, has given it, 
whether or not he receive it again. The impression conveyed 
to most readers is that Onesiphorus had ventured into this 
dangerous quarter once too often, and paid, or was likely to pay, 
the penalty with his life. 

Paul's prayer for him is that in the Hereafter he may be repaid 
in his own coin by One, whose promise stands, ' Blessed are the 
merciful, for tliey shall obtain mercy'. As he had persevered 
till he found Paul in this dark cell, so in that bright Day when 
he reaches the goal of his life's quest, may he find a still truer 
Friend, and better welcome, awaiting him There. Meanwhile in 
one household at Ephesus they will be needing that same mercy 
to comfort them, when they hear the news that will accompany 
this letter. He prays that they may find it ; and sends them 
such an account of those last weeks at Rome, as would at least 
mingle a just pride with their sorrow. So he discharges this 
debt of gratitude as best he can — pays an immortal tribute to 
the memory of his friend, rescues his name from oblivion, and 
links it for ever with his own, as one of those who held not their 
lives of any account, so that they might accomplish the ministry 
which they received from the Lord Jesus (Acts xx. 24). 

That Onesiphorus should have proved himself worthy of such 
a tribute would be no surprise to those who had known the man 
long and well enough to recognize his real character. It was 
like him, they would say, recalling one instance after another of 
his thoughtful self-effacing ministry. There was one time in 
particular, five to seven years earlier, when he and Paul and 
Timothy were all in Ephesus together. Doubtless Timothy had 
every reason to realize then, and to remember now, how well 
this true disciple had learned the lesson taught in those ' words 
of the Lord Jesus ' — ' It is more blessed to give than to receive ' 
(Acts XX. ss)' 

A comparison of this passage with that in which Paul tells the 
Philippians (ii. 25 ff.) of similar services rendered, and risks taken, 
by Epaphroditus, leaves no room for doubt that he who wrote 

' Col. iv. 7, Eph. vi, 21 f., Phil. ii. 23. 

2S9G K 



I30 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

the one, wrote also the other, and after no long interval. Each 
helps us to understand how it was, that so many were willing to 
put their lives in jeopardy for his sake. 



IL 

But Paul was not one to keep all his gratitude for the dead, 
and forget what he owed to the living friend, whose services and 
comradeship reached back over a still longer period. 

For himself the thought of what is coming has no terrors. 
For Love and Faith have transfigured Death, and banished Fear. 
But he realizes none the less what the news of his death must 
mean to Timothy. With infinite care and delicacy he chooses 
his words to break the shock of those tidings, and comfort the 
sad heart of his friend. First he will rob inevitable grief at least 
of its sting, by meeting beforehand all bitter thoughts of vain 
regret or needless self-reproach, that Timothy was not in his 
place by Paul's side at the last. He will set What-has-been to 
silence What-might-have-been. Then he will show him the 
brighter side of this sorrow. 

Nothing that any one else may have done, and nothing that 
has happened, or can happen now, will ever be able to eclipse 
the unwavering devotion of this man after Paul's own heart, 
this kindred spirit {l(T6y\rv\ov , Phil. ii. 20), who has followed like 
his faithful shadow over more miles than either of them could 
count. Long before ever they set foot in Ephesus as heralds of 
the Gospel, Timothy had responded with youthful enthusiasm 
to Paul's invitation, and had left all, to join him on what was 
then already a perilous mission. He knows, none better, what 
happened to Paul before that, at Antioch, at Iconium, and at 
Lystra. No need to write out the much longer list of places 
where they two together have since then carried their lives in 
their hands, as they flung in the face of an unbelieving world the 
eternal challenge of the Cross. Uphill and down, through storm 
and sunshine, leaving the old home very far behind, they have 
tramped side by side, learning to know and understand each 
other, as only they can, who have seen one another in many 
different lights and changing moods, and under very varied 
circumstances. In the fierce furnace of tribulation, and in the 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 131 

crucible of pain, they have proved each the other's fidelity, and 
have found it pure gold. 

It does not seem too much to say that Timothy must indeed 
have 'followed' Paul's teaching, alike in its detail and in its 
large outlines, as no other ever did or ever will. For when Paul 
was writing his early letters to the Thessalonians, as in his varied 
correspondence with the Corinthian Church, Timothy was there 
by his side. When he dictated his masterpiece to the Romans, 
Timothy was there, while Tertius wrote. More recently in 
Rome, as he wove the rich many-coloured fabric of those 
charges to the churches of Asia, or revealed in the note to 
Philemon more of the real Paul than any but an intimate might 
see ; and last of all, only a little while ago, when he opened his 
inmost heart to those loyal friends at Philippi, Timothy was 
there— not as an absolutely silent and impassive bystander, but 
venturing perhaps now and then to offer a suggestion. In each 
of these, except the circular which we know as Ephesians, he is 
named either as a trusted colleague^ or as joint-sender along with 
Paul ; and this can hardly have been a mere idle compliment. 

He knew therefore the actual circumstances under which each 
of these immortal letters was written. He could recall the very 
look, tone, and gesture with which many of those thoughts were 
first uttered, that have changed so many lives. There would be 
other letters too, doubtless, known to Timothy, but lost to us 
(e. g. to the Laodiceans, Col. iv. 16). 

He has had unique opportunities of following not only the written, 
but also the spoken words of the Apostle — sermons on great 
occasions, discourses in school and synagogue, fierce debates, con- 
versations in street or market or upperroom — personal applications 
of one divine remedy to the infinite variety of human need. 

Meanwhile his youth has hardened into manhood, and the 
disciple (or Chela, as they might say in India), has become the 
honoured and trusted comrade, and the 'son', 'the brother' 
(Philem. i, cf. i Cor. iv. 17). Sharing the vision of a Kingdom, 
they have shared also the travail which makes that Kingdom 
come. They have learned to be silent together without 
embarrassment, or speak without reserve, as men may, who 

^ I Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10 f., Rom. xvi. 21. 
K 2 



133 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

have passed through deep waters together. And this old fisher 
of men might have repeated what that other old fisherman, in 
Theocritus, says to his mate, as they He in their hut by the sea, 
wakeful through the long, dark hour before dawn : 

cos /cat Taf dypav rdivupara iroLvra nepi^ev} • 

So it has come to pass that Timothy has been initiated into 
the inner secrets of Paul's mind, has marked the drift of his 
great arguments and the connexion between diverse elements 
in his teaching — has entered into his aims and ideals, his hopes 
and fears, his dreams and disappointments, and shared with him 
the ventures of that faith which stakes all on the present power, 
and final victory, of ' things not seen '. He has come very near 
to the great heart of Paul, has caught the glow of its passion, 
felt the throb of its desire, and marvelled at the inexhaustible 
reserves of its calm fortitude. 

He knows too, as hardly another, what it has all cost — 
amid what difficulties, in what sheer physical weakness, weari- 
ness, and pain, and in the teeth of what relentless opposition, 
open and underhand, Paul has carried out his life-purpose through 
the years. It was a hunted man, with a price set on his head, 
as well as a sick man, tortured and' hampered by some incurable 
complaint, who built up that mighty edifice, to withstand the 
shocks of time, and become one of the permanent factors shaping 
the thoughts and moulding the destinies of men. Yes, Timothy 
knows, though he cannot understand, the hatred which has dogged 
the steps of his friend — by what awful vows men with pious phrases 
on their lips have bound themselves to kill him — and by how very 
little they have failed. But one thing more he knows, that hitherto 
the Unseen Deliverer has brought him safely through all. 

Therefore he has the right to share Paul's confidence that 
in this direst assault of evil powers the same Divine Helper will 
stand by him to the end. Not that Paul has any illusions, or is 
blind to the desperate nature, humanly speaking, of his present 
situation. When he wrote to the Philippians, there still seemed 
quite a good hope of his being set free to revisit his churches, 
and continue his work on earth. But now that is all over, and 
there is not the remotest chance of his escaping alive from the 

^ Idyll xxi. 31 : 'Be partner of my dreams, as of my fishing '.—A. C. Benson, 
Uptoti Letters, p. 282. 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 133 

hands of his enemies. From Caesar's verdict there is in this 
world no further appeal. 

Yet even so he is safe ! Through this most perilous pass the 
Lord will be his Helper ; and the same Hand which long ago 
rescued him from ' wild beasts at Ephesus ', and from * the lion's 
mouth ' at Jerusalem, will bring him unharmed through the 
very jaws of death, and set him in the heavenly kingdom.^ And 
now in this sublime confidence^ which finds its climax in the 
doxology, iv. 18, — 

HL 

The Apostle lays on Timothy the last solemn charge, in the 
witnessing presence of mighty Invisible Powers, binding him to 
his duty by vows more strait than ever Arthur laid upon his 
knights. Come what may, he is to herald the Word. Let his 
message ring out inevitable as the Day of Judgement, and his 
preaching catch from his theme some of its tremendous urgency. 
Keep close at the appointed task {eTTLa-rrjOi), as one whose Task- 
master is close at hand [k(f)e<jTrjKiv, cf. i Thess. v. af. kTVLaTarai). 
This he must do, not waiting for the convenient season, like 
some excellent persons and brilliant preachers (i Cor. xvi. 12 
orav evKaLprja-rj), but sowing the good seed in all weathers and 
beside all waters. * In season ', yes, watching always for the best 
opportunity, missing no heaven-sent chance, buying up the right 
moment, though it cost all he has. But also, ' out of season ' — 
daring the apparently hopeless venture, holding on when all 
seems lost, preaching to deaf ears, knocking still at fast-bolted 
doors, finding in opposition and peril only an added incentive to 
go forward (i Cor. xvi. 8 f.). Timothy is to do the work, not of 
an ecclesiastic (honourable and necessary as later experience 
may prove such service to be), but of an evangelist. His to take 
up the torch and wave it ; to carry the light of a great Hope 
into the dark places of sorrow, sin, and despair ; and so labour- 
ing, to fill up his cup of human service. 

IV. 

For Paul's own cup is full to the brim, nay, is already being 
poured out (see p. 112 f.). At last he has received the summons so 

^ p. 121 f. In any case, Paul was of this mind to the last. 



134 PAULINE ELEMENTS 

long and eagerly awaited. For him the midnight is past. He 
stands watching the day break. His hour of destiny has come. 
The anchor is weighed, the vessel ready. A wind from heaven 
is filling her sails. And the voyager is ready too. It is high 
time for him to put out to sea. There will be no shipwreck 
this time ! 

So in Paul's spirit broods the deep content of one who has 
played his part like a man in the great game of life. He has run 
his race. He has kept the faith, not like some zealous custodian 
of traditions received, at second-hand, from a mightier Past, but 
as a pioneer guards the gate of a land he helped to discover ; as 
a seeker stands for the Truth revealed to his eyes by no mortal's 
showing, but by a light from heaven. 

All that remains for him now is to go and receive the victor's 
crown, laid up in store for him in some safe treasure-house of the 
great Unseen. This a Judge more just than Caesar will give 
him on that Day whose promised coming is the refrain of Paul's 
triumph-song. But not Paul only — there would be no joy for 
him in any reward, which he could not look forward to sharing 
with others — all who have loved the Lord's appearing, shall have 
their part in the glory of that marvellous dawn. 

That is all. There is indeed nothing more to be said. A last 
greeting to Paul's chief friends at Ephesus, Prisca and Aquila, 
who risked their lives for him long ago (Rom. xvi. 3 f), and would 
do it again, if occasion offered ; and the family of Onesiphorus. 
Then greetings to Timothy from four members of the Roman 
Church by name, and from the brethren generally. The letter 
closes with the simple benediction. 

Of this last message Bengel's golden phrase tells the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth : 

' Testamentum Pauli et cygnea cantio est haec epistula '.^ 
To these five notes the oracular remark of Erasmus may be 
applied, without a trace of that irony which seems to lurk in 
the words, as often as they are quoted with reference to these 
epistles as a whole : 

' Non est cuiusvis Paulinum effingere pectus.' ^ 

^ 'This letter is Paul's testament and swan-song.' 
^ Not every one can feign the heart of Paul.' 



PAULINE ELEMENTS 135 

There is a saying attributed to Averrhoes, the Arab philo- 
sopher : 

* Bonum est cribrare modium sabuli ut quis inveniat unam 
margaritam '. ^ 

It has been necessary for us to sift many bushels of the dryest 
sand that ever drifted — collecting Particles, Prepositions, Hapax 
Legomena, passing these through index after index as through 
a sieve — calculating percentages, poring over diagrams, and 
striving to wrest from arid pages of statistics their lost secret. 
Now at the end, if our argument holds, we find not one pearl 
only, but a cluster of five, and see them restored, each to its 
own place on the shining thread of Paul's life-story. 

* ' It is good to sift a measure of sand, and find one pearl.'— E. C. Gardner, 
Dcmte's Ten Heavetis, p. 3. 



136 



EPILOGUE 

It only remains to indicate very briefly some of the more im- 
portant results for New Testament study and Church History 
which would follow, in the event of the conclusions drawn in this 
essay being confirmed by the verdict of scholarship. 

1. In the first place, the non-Pauline elements would no 
longer form the basis of what would in that case be recognized 
as mistaken conceptions of the personal development of the 
Apostle, and of the general development of the Church during 
his lifetime. But these elements would remain as an important 
factor in the materials for a historic reconstruction of actual 
developments in Christian ideals, doctrine, and polity during the 
reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. 

2. Our reasons for regarding the other ten epistles as genuine 
would be strongly reinforced {a) by the external evidence of this 
new witness who, in the early years of the second century knew, 
revered, and quoted, all or most of them, as the very words of 
Paul, (d) by the internal evidence of our statistical tables and 
other linguistic tests in which they are seen to form so consistently 
a close series. 

3. The genuine notes would gain a new and greatly enhanced 
value and interest by being thus restored to their true context 
and historical setting in the actual life of the Apostle. 

4. Our conception of that life would be shorn of the old 
legend of a release and second Roman imprisonment, with all 
the network of mistaken inferences which have for so many years 
derived from it their plausibility. 

5. But for the rest, the historicity of the heroic figure and 
personality of Paul, as delineated in the Acts and in the genuine 
epistles, would receive new and striking confirmation. 



APPENDIX I 

A. Words found in the Pastorals, but 7tot in the ten Paidines. 
306 (including repetitions 437). 

+ A postolic Fathers only. 

* In Apostolic Fathers and also in Apologists. 
X In Apologists only. 

• In neither. 

c Only in quotations from the LXX. 

The figure after a word indicates the number of times it occurs. 
Where there is no figure, the word occurs only once. 

A I. 'Pastoral Hapax Legomena'. Not elsewhere in the N. T., 175 

(incl. reps. 220). 

(i) I Timothy only, 75 (incl. reps. 86) . 

+ 11 ayvei'a 2, (SXa^epo?, St'JVoyos, StwKTr/?, erepoSiSao-KaA-ca) 2, fxaraLoXoyta, 
o/ioAoyov/x-eVw?, TrpavTraOia, Trpoa-KXiais, reKvoyoveu), VTrepTrXeova^w. 

He 8 oAXws, dvcTTtAT^/ATTTOS 3, (XTrepavTOS, aTToScKTOS 2, cAaTTOv (adv.), 
€VTiv$i<; 2, deocri/SeLa, <f>LXapyvpLa. 

X 1 9 at8u)S, apLOifirj, dvSpocfiovos, airoSo)(i^ 2, aTrpocriTO?, ^LaTpo<^rf, cKyovos, 
ivTpf.<f)Ofxai, iTTiopKos, iTrnrXrjo-crw, ■^pefios, KaraXiyofxai, Kocr/xtos 2, 
/xeraAij/yH^tS) fiovoofiai, vocrew, pr^Tois, virovoia, i^cvSoAoyos. 

• 37 aS'rjXoTrj?, dvSpaTroStcmjs, dfTiOecn^, avriXvTpov, dTroySAryTOS, d-rroOy}- 
a-avpi^w, avOevrew, /3a6'/xos, ypawSrjs, yvfxvacTLa, SiaTrapaTpt/Srj, 
iSpacwfJia, iKt^i^rrjo-LS, iirapKew 3, evfJUTaSoTO?, KaTaaroXr], Kara- 
<TTpy}via.iii, KavcTTrjpLd^o/Jiai, KOtvwvtKos, Xoyop.a)(^La, fxr]TpaX{^y]'?, 
V€C(fiVTO<;, ^(.vo8o)^i(D, OLKoScaTTOTiu), TrarpaXiorjs, TreptTrcipw, TrXeyfxa, 
7ropLo-[x6<5 2, TrpoKpifxa, (TKiiraa-jxa, crrd^ita^^os, TCKvoyovta, T(.kvo- 
TpofjiiO), vSpoTTOrew, vif/rjXo<f)povio), (ftXvapo';, i/^evSwvv/AOS. 
[? also • Koo-p-tws ii. 9 W. H."*, v. S.**^. • ttvkvos adj. v. 23 (as adv. 
Luke V. ;i^, Acts xxiv. 26), cf. A 2 (i). x varepos (Matt. xxi. 3 r 
W. H., not v. S.), cf. A 2 (i). • dyaOoepyiw vi. 18 = dyaOovpyeui 
Acts xiv. 17, cf. A 2 (i).] 

(ii) 2 Timothy only, 48 (incl. reps. 50). 
+ 11 dy(oyr], ava^wTTvpeo), dvaXvai^, dvavi/]<j>(i}, dvaij/v)(U), aTratScrTOS, Se'.At'a, 
iTTiauipevw, KaTaa-Tpo(Prj, vccorepiKos, jj^aAKevs. 



138 APPENDIX I 

• 9 dOXiw 2, piXriov, y6r)<;, ivBvvoi, KaTacfiOeipofxai, ynTySeTroTC, 7ricrToo//iat, 

7rpay/;iaTt'a, )(pT]crLfx.o<;. 
X 7 aK/aarrys, ave^iKaKO?, dvrjfjL€po<;, aTroTpeTrofiai, <^iAavTOS, ^iXt^Sovos, 
^iXd^co5. 

• 2 1 aKaipois, dv£7rat'(r;(WTOS, dvri8iaTL$€p.ai, aprios, a(nrovSo<;, acf>iXa.ya6o<;, 

yayypatva, yuvatKuptov, €k8i/Xos, eXey/xos, eTravop^wcris, ^eo7rv£vo-T09, 
KvrjOojxai, Aoyo/xa;^cw, fxap^fxr], fjce/xfipdva, opOoTOfiio}, (TTpaToXoyetx), 
crvvKaKOTraOeio 2, cro)(f)povL(rix6s, ({>eX6vr]<;- 

(iii) Titus only, 30 (incl. reps. 30). 

+ 6 ^SeXvKTo?, cy/cpari^s, KaTaarTrjiJia, Trepiowios C, o'Ti;yi7Tos, </>iXot€ki'os. 

• 6 di/^cvST^s, iKCTTpef^ojxai, opyi'Ao?, TT/oeo-^vTis, crwTi^ptos, ^povTiL,(i}. 
X 3 lOuSatKos, (Toicfipovi^oi, (TW(f>p6v<a<;. 

• 15 aipcTiKos, d/caTayi/cocTTOs, auTO/caraKpiTOS, d</)aopia, eTTiotopD'ow, €7rtcrT0- 

/xt^o), UpoTrp€Trrj<;, KaXoSiSdcrKaXo<;, fiaraioXoyo'i, vo/xt/cos adj., 
oiKovpyds, Trepi(f)pov€(j}, (jiiXdyaOo<s, (ftLXavSpos, <})pevaTraTr]<;. 

(iv) I and 2 Timothy, 9 (incl. reps, i Tim. ir, 2 Tim. 10). 
+ 2 dcrro^^ew 3, Trapai^KaTajQ-^Kyj 3. 
il< I dvdcrtos 2 . 
X 2 Trpdyoi/os 2, TU<^do/xai3. 

• 4 StSaKTlKOS 2, K€V0(fi(aVLa2, VOfXlfXW^ 2 , V7rOTV7r<j)(TL<S 2 . 

(v) I Timothy and Titus, 10 (incl. reps, i Tim. 12, Tit. 12). 

• 4 8tay8eySaido/Aat 2, Stdyco 2, o-c/xfott^s 3, (rwffipwv 4. 

X I ttAi^kti^s 2 . 

• 5 atVxpoKcpSTys 2, d/xaxo5 2, ycveaXoyta2, v7j^dAtos3, 7rdpotvos2. 

(vi) 2 Timothy and Titus, i (incl. reps. 2 Tim. i. Tit. i). 

+ I €vcre/3Ci)<; 2. 
[?also X dvarpcVw 2 Tim. ii. 18, Titus i. 11 (Jo. ii. 15 W. H., not 
W. U.^ V. S.), cf. A 2 (vi).] 

(vii) I and 2 Timothy and Titus, 2 (incl. reps, i Tim. 3, 2 Tim. 2, Tit. 2). 

+ I 8td/3oXos adj. 3. 
He I w<^eAt/xos 4. 

A 2. In the Pastorals and other N. T. books, not in the ten Pauline 

Epistles. 131 (incl. reps. 217). 

(i) I Timothy only, 52 (incl. reps. 61). 
+ 11 d^iAdpyvpo?, ySpaSww, (^vOit^ta, yvfxvd^o), /xapyaptTTj?, TrcptTTOico/xat, 
TToAvre At^S, Trpeo-ySvrepiov, TrpoSrjXos 2, o-TraraAdw, cru)fJ.aTLKOS. 



APPENDIX I 139 

• 28 dyueXew, avTiXafj.^dvofji.ai, aTr6Xav(Ti<;, (XTroTrXavaw, ao-7rtXo9, StVXoo?, 

(l(r(f>ip(j}, eK(fiep(o, c/ATrtTTTO) 3, iiraKoXovOew 2, iiriXafJifSdvofxai 2, 
iTTLO-KOTTT], iTTLcrTafxai, iTnTLOr]fJii, cvepyecrta, rj(rv)(io<;, Ovt^ctko), IfiarL- 
(Tfio'i, KTtcr/xa, XoiSopLa, ficXerau), veoTrj?, Trapahi^op.ai, Trcpt'epyo?, 
Trpodyoi 2, 7rpo(Tep)(op.ai, cruxftpoavvr] 2, v/^pi^o). 
> 7 ovvd(TT7]<;, iTTLfxeXtofxai, evcre/Seo), ^(jioyovioi, opiyofxai 2, irpo(Tp.ivw 2, 

VCTTepO'S. 

• 6 dyaOoepyiwy i^Kovra, vltttm, ro/Ao8iSao"KaXos, wepiip^Ofxai, irvKVO'i. 

(ii) 2 Timothy only, 33 (incl. reps. 34). 

+ 7 o.pyvp^o's, ifj.7rXeK(o, KaKOTraOeu) 2, vofirj, TrpoSorr]';, TrpoireTiQ^, viroixvrjcrt';. 

• 17 dvoia, ^pe<^os, 8p6fj.o<;, KptTrjs, XeW, XtW, /xa;^o/Aat, fievToi, {jLe^raXafx- 

jidvoi, /xr/TTore, (TO<f)cl,(j), CTTepeds, aT€<f)av6(i), (j)LXdpyvpo<;, ;^aX€7ro?, 
Xeifxdiv, )(pvcreos. 
■y 7 dxdpLcrTO<;, yewpyos, i-TnTLfxdt}, t,wypiw, KUKovpyos, ^'Xtvos, a-TpaTidTrjS. 

• 2 i^apri^Q), evKaipcDS. 

(iii) Titus only, 15 (incl. reps. 17). 

+ 4 avddSrj';, cTrt^aivw 2, vo(r(f)L£,ofxai, 7raXivycv€o-ta. 

• 10 dv(<j(/)€X7;s, rj86v7], Orjptov, KocrfjiiK6<;, XeiVco 2, Xurpoo/xat, fiiairw, 

Trf.t9ap-)(i(ii>, {lytr/s, </>iXav^/3W7ri'a. 

• I vo/xLKos (subs.). 

(iv) I and 2 Timothy, 8 (incl. reps, i Tim. 12, 2 Tim. 8). 

^ 6 (SCO'S 2, (3Xd(T(jir]ixo'i 2, iKTpenw 4, Krjpv^ 2, TrapaKoXovOew 2, ^€Lpwv 2. 
X I /3e(3T]Xo? 4. 

• I cTrt^ecris 2. 

(v) I Timothy and Titus, io (incl. reps, i Tim. 20, Tit. ii). 

+ I (jSiXo^evos 2. 

• 7 dpyos 3, Koa-jj.i(a2, ixapTvpLa2, vewrepos 5) oo-tos 2, Trpccr^vVcpos 5 

TTpoae^^w 5- 
X I Karrjyopia 2. 

• I dvuiroTafCTOs 3. 

(vi) 2 Timothy and Titus, 6 (incl. reps. 2 Tim. 8^ Tit. 6). 

jj; 4 aiTta 3, aTToXttTTW 3, ttoikiXos 2, vTrofju/xvijaKw 2. 
X I dvaTpiiroi 2. 

• I ■mpdcTTrjp.L 2. 



140 APPENDIX I 

(vii) I and 2 TiiMOXHYand Titus, 7 (incl. reps, i Tim. 18, 2 Tim, ii» 

Tit, 11). 

H< 5 d(OV€o/Aat 7, Seo-TTOTT^s 4, €vae/3eia lO, [x-vOos 4) Trapatreo/xat 4. 
^ I ^i^Tvycris 3. 
• I vyiaiviii 8. 





I Tim. 


2 Ti 


m. 


Titus. 


Total. 




A T. 


A 2. 


A I. 


A 2. 


A I. 


A 2. 


A I. A 2 


+ 


14 


12 


15 


7 


8 


5 


32 23 


:<« 


14 


46 


II 


32 


II 


26 


29 77 


X 


22 


10 


9 


10 


4 


3 


32 18 


• 


46 


9 


25 


5 


20 


4 


82 13 




96 


77 


60 


54 


43 

v__ 


38 


175 131 



173 114 81 306 

Words found in one Pauline Epistle. 
(i) Romans, 261 (including repetitions, 336). 

B I. Also in the Pastorals, but in no other N. T. book. 10 (incl. reps, i o). 
+ 3 dStaXciTTTO?, dXa^wi', dvaKaiVaxris. 

* 2 TT/Vdcrcrw, vTTOTiQiq\ii. 

o 5 dcrropyos, /xdp^cocrts, oSvvr], crwpivo) C, v/^pLarrj';. 

B 2. In the Pastorals, and elsewhere in the N. T. 23 (incl. reps. 37). 

+ 2 i-TraiaxyvofJiaL 2, Trayts C. 

* 20 dTTCt^Tjs, aTTto-Teo), aTTLCTTLa 4, dTTco^e'o/Aat 2 C, do-e/3cta 2, d(Te(3rj? 2, eK€r2) 

TjixiTepo';, KaOapQ'i, Ka^to-rryyat 2, Kou'ds 2, o/AoXoyew 2, [? X dvctot^w, 
I Tim. iv. lo W. H.^, v. S., not W.H., cf. c 2], piCa4, toExos, 
v7repi^(fiavos, <^e/3w, i{/€v(TTy]<i. dvTtXeyco C, airo(TTpi<^(ii C, eK^^ew C. 
c I 6v€iSto-/x.ds C. 

C I. Not in the Pastorals, nor elsewhere in the N. T. 103 (incl. reps. 127). 

+ 12 avoxf) 2, iTravafJi.Lfxvi]crK(o, iXap6Tr}<s, /catvoTT^s 2, KaraXaAos, TrpoSt'Sco/At C, 
TTpoTjyio/Jiai, (TKXrjpoTrjs, o-vvSo$dt,M, avvTe/xvuyC, ■^^yjp.aTKTp.o'i, 
if/evcTfia. 



APPENDIX I 141 

!|j 14 a(fiiKV€oixai,axp€6oixaLC, iKKaLO/xai, iKireroivvvfiiC, iTriKoKvirTia C, KaKorj- 
6eLa, KaTacTKaiTTO) C, j/wtos C, TrXda-jxa, Trpoytvofxai, 7rpo€;(o//,ai, 
(Tjj/xySouXos C, vwoXeLirofJiaL C, )(prj(ri'S 2. ' 

X 24 dvaXoyLa, avaTroXoyrjTO^ 2, avOpa^C, aTTOcTTvyio), dcTTrts C, yparrTo?, 
SoXido) C, €Trovojxat,ojxaL, €TrTaKi(r\cXioL C, ijrot, 6ei6rr]?, Oeocrrvyrjs, 
KaOopdu), Xdpvy^C, vo/xoOecrta, ope^ts, TrapaKei/xaL 2, irpoTrdTcop, 
cre^ct^OyLtat, o-uvaycovt^o/xat, o-vvrpLfiixa C, <rvv<^y][Xi, VTrepcjipoviu), vvo- 
XifiyM C. 

• 53 aypte'Aaios 2, dXaXrjro?, d/xeravoryTO?, dveXe->;/xa)i', dv£fe,oaw>jT05, dvo- 

//.(o? 2, dvTCCTTpaTevojxat, d7roToXju.aw, aTroTOfita 2, dpd C, dcr6ivr]fji.a, 
d(Tuv^€TO?, SLKaiOKpLcrta, SiKatwiris 2, iyyvrepov, ii<aT0VTaeTi]?, Ik- 
KXdojxat 3, lvK^vTpit,oy 6, iTnTToOia, s^euperr^s, ^?/pa C, UpocrvXeo), 
lepovpyioi, KaXXieXatos, KaraKpL/xa 3, Karavvfis C, Xtfifia, /xaTaioofxat, 
fieraXXdacTiii 2, olKTei,pw C, TraXatorr/s, irapecrt?, inoTrj'i, irpoatTidofiai , 
irp6<jXr}jx\l/i<:, TTpoa-rdTL^, (Tvp.^vTO';, (TvvavaTravofJiaL, (rvvt]8oy.ai, 
arvvKdfXTTTw C, (Twi-iapTvpiii) 3, crvuTrapaKaXeofiai, <rw(TTevd^(ij, crvvw 
StVo), ToX/xT^poTepojs, i;7ra!'Spos, VTrepevTuy^dvoj, virepvLKdoy, vtt68lko<;, 
(fiiXocrTopyos, (jipovrjfjia 4, •^py](JToXoyLa., ij/LOvpLcrTi]?. 

C 2. Not in the Pastorals, but elsewhere in the N. T. 125 (incl. reps. 162). 

+ 13 dvTirdo-cro/xat, ttTreVavrt C, a(T)(r]jxocrvvq, yj'wo-To?, Swp7;p,a, iiravaTravo- 

fxai, limriirTOi C, Kadr^KOi, Trratw, orevayyuo?, (fnXo^evta. Twice — 

KOLTTQ, (TKOTL^OfJiaL. 

• 8 1 dy8ucr(Tos C, dtStos, aiveco C, otKa/co?, 6.KpoaTrj^, oififxo'S C, di'dyw, dvraTro- 

Sop,a C, dpL9jx6<; C, drfiaipea) C, fSovXrjfxa, ye/xw C, oevpo, SiayyeXXw C, 
Sta7ropevop,ai, Starayi^, Std^opo?, e/c^i^rew C, eK^^vvvo/xai, iXdaawv C 
(adj.), i[XTrifjiTrXr]iJLi, iTrt(T7]fxo<;, iiriTvy^^dvo}, cTrt^epw, ipTrerov, t/zcw C, 
Oedofiai, tosC, Karctyw, Karavoew, KarapdofxaL, KaTrjyopew, Kepa/xev^, 
kvkXu), XeiTOt'pyeo), Xoytov, [xip.<^ofxaL, jxeragv, /XTQiro), OLKeTrj?, 
olKOv/xivrj C, ofxoOvfxaSov, 6/xoidw C, opi^o), Trepa? C, TrcTetvov, irrjXo?, 
TrnrpdcTKb), ttov, Trpo/Sarov C, TrpoOv/xo'i, Trpdvoia, TrpofftrjTLKO^, cr/cXij- 
pwo), (ruvreXco) C, crwTpt/?w, cr^ayy] C, raXatTrwpia C, TaXtttVcopos, 
Tcti^osC, Tpd)(rjXo';,TV(f>X6<;, ^oveuwC, </)dvo5, wpaiosC, wo-et. Twice — 
dSvvaros, drt/xd^o), eKKXtvw, Xarpeta, /Aeo-rds, /Aot^^eLw, TrpoytvcocrKW, 
Trpoo-KOTTTO), vif/r]X6?. 3 times — dcruVeTos, eVTvy;(dvw, viKaco. 5 
times — aTreiOeo), SLKaiwfxa, kXcioos. 
X 24 avTaTTOKpLvo/xai, aTro/SoX^, eyKaXeco, ifx(fiavyj<; C, ^ew, Xa;)(avov, 
XoytKo?, /xjjTpa, 6Sy]y6<;, 6v€iSit,<j) C, o^v? C, TratSevTT^s, Trotr/ri;?, 
avv<T)(7]p.aTLt,ofxaL, TerpaTrous, vttvos, </>acr/ccD, )(prjfiaTtt,o), we^eXt'a. 
Twice — iXaia, p,ot;)(aXiSj (fi6po<;, cf^vcrLKo';. 4 times — o-uyyev?;?. 

• 7 dva^aw, evSt/cos, tXacrn/ptov, p,dXts, 6(fi€LXrjfxa, a-vvavriXa/x^dvofxai, 

KaraKav^dofxai 2. 



142 APPENDIX I 

(ii) I Corinthians, 266 (incl. reps. 415). 

B I. 7 (incl. reps. 9). 
+ I ap(revoKOLTr]<;. 

^ 4 adavacria 2, tc/oo?, cru/t;8ao"iX€vo), VTr€po)(r]. 
X I iKKaOaipw. 

• I dXoa'o) 2 (l c). 

B 2. 2 2 (incl. reps. 51). 

* 20 d.7roa-T€pi(a ^, ySous 2 (l c), yayaeco 9, Sat/Aovtov 4, BeUvvfii, eira 3, 

eTTiTjocTro) 2, Icr^^aTOsS) ^laratos 2, fxijxvricTKOjxai, /Acopos 4) vo/ixi^w 2, 
TrapayivofJiaL, irapaTiOrjixi, Tvy^dvoi^, VTTOtjiipoi, tjievyo) 2, ^lAew, 

• 2 7rapa)(^eLfJi.a^(i), (^t/xoo) C. 

C I. 98 (incl. reps. 127). 
+ 19 aKwv, dvSpt^ofxaL, aTreXevOepo^, eKTputfia, ivipyrj/xa 2, evTpOTrrj 2, O-qpio- 
fxa)(iwy tafxa ^, Kara/caAwTO/xat 3, KaracrTpwvvD/xai, fxapav-ada, 
pLOipia 5 , TrapeSpevo), TrapoSos, TrepLijjrjfia, crvv^rjTyjT-^?, Tay/x.a, (faXo- 
vctKO?, )(pr](rT(vo/xaL. 

* 15 dra^tos, aij/v^o^, Staipccrt? 3 , iyKpaTevop.aL 2, efatpcoC, iTTLUVjxrjTrj?, 

iTTLa-irdofJiaL, epp.r]Via 2, yOos, fjieOvcros 2, o/xiXia, irait^w C, (rvfJ.4>opo? 2, 
crvfx<f>(i)vo^, crvvyvMfJir]. 
X 20 dya/AOS 4, dyevT^s, dvTLXrjfxij/t?, d-rroSei^LS, da-)(r]P-ovi(x> 2, avXos, SiOTrcp 2, 
8oiiXaywy€a), SpdaaofiaL C ?, 8vcr<f>y]iJi.€U), iKvq<fiO), ioprd^o), KaXafxr], 
Kara^pdop-aL 2 , Kojxrj, Xwis, fxyyriye, tttt^vos, TrvKxevco, </)pv;i' 2 . 

• 44 dSaTravos, dST^Xws, atviypa, dKaraKdAnTTTOs 2, d/xeTaKtVr;T09, dva^tojs, 

dTTcpto-Trdo-TO)?, dp^iT£KTwv, do-TaTco), d(r;(iy/xo)j', drofios, )8po;(os,yewp- 
ytov, yr//,viTev(o(?), Supp.rjV£VTi]<;, eiSwXiov, evKOTn^, cTrt^avdrto?, irepo- 
yXwaao'S C, euTrdpcSpos, evcrTj/AOS, €V(T)(rip.o(Tvvrj, rjx^^^y tepouvTO';, 
Ko/idw 2, Kvfiepvqcri';, KVfjijSaXov, Xoyca 2, XoiSopos 2, p^aKcXXov, vrj, 
vr]7rLd^oi,6Xo0p€VTi]'S, 6(T(j>prj(Ti<;, irapap^vOta, ttlOo'S, irepiKdOapfici, Trep- 
7rep€vofJiai,ptTr-^,crvvp.epL^o/xaL,TV7rLKS)S, {iTrtpa/c/xos, XO'^'^053, wcnrepei. 

C 2. 139 (incl. reps. 228). 
+ 19 dyj/wcrta, dfxepLfxvos, dpyvpiov, Secrrvew, iKireipd^w, KardKCLfxai, kivSv- 
vcuw, KOKKos, KvpLaKo<s, p.aXaKos ,7repLdyu},7rv€vfxaT iKU)?,(rvvK€pdvvvfXL, 
crxoXdt,o). Twice — (3l<jl)TLk6s, KXdu), iroiixvrj. 3 times — dyopd^o). 
10 times — dvaKpivoi. 

* 7° doT^Xos, dKoXov^ew, aKpacria, d/A7reXwv, dirdyu), airof^ipw, avpLOvC, Srj, 

otatpeo), owoc/ca, tdo), £iKoo"t, €tcraKOi;a) C, eVo^os, €7rdi-'a), eTriySdXXw, 
iirLKf.Lp.aL, LVOV'S, Kat'o), KaraKaLO), KiOdpa, ktijvos, XotSopew, p.'qvvm, 
p.OL'^o';, ovai, ovoeTrore, oc^cXos, TratStov, Trai/Ta^oi), Trapdyu), Trda)(a, 
TrevraKoVtoi, TreVrc, Trepiri^T^yui, TrXctoros, Troi/xatVw, ttoXc/aos, irup.a, 



APPENDIX I 143 

Trpoa-Kvveo), pa^So?, aeXi^vr], ortros, (TTaSto?, (rvjx/3atvoi, crvvdyo), 
ot;v€tos C, Ti/Atos, TOivvv, TVTTTO), VTrr/peTT^s, ;^aXfcos, x'^'"?- Twice — 
avd, dvdfj.vrjcn<;, drtfios, a^covos, yaXa, BeLirvov, £/c8€;(Oyu,ai, ^vw, Kcipm, 
fieXei, ixvpCo'i, Tropv€vw, Tropvr], a-vvrjOua. 3 times — dpira^, daryp, 
viKOS C, oAo)?, (rxi<Tp.a. 4 times — ^tiT€i;co. 5 times — ciSojXo^utos, 
/A€Te;!((o. 7 times — (Tvvipxop-c-i- 8 times — Tro-njpiov. 1 1 times — 

Trpoc^T^Tevw. 
X 20 dXaXa^w, d.7roXoi;<o, ypa/A/Aarevs, €vvo/A09, cvycvT^s, ^aTrro), OeaTpoVyUpov, 
fiaLVOfxaL, Trapo^vvo/xai, irevTyjKoarTr), TrtoXco), ;;^dpT09, ij/ev8ofiapTvs. 
Twice — a^D/Aos, KivTpov, KpiTYipiov, ^pdoixaL, oadKi^. 4 times — 
ij/vxi-KO';. 

• 2 2 apoTpido), dppwcTTO'S, av\4op.aL, CKySttcrts, eXectvo?, evKaipeoi, Kara/Aevw, 

KLOapt^w, Kopevw/xai, /aoXwo), 7repi/3oXatov, craXTTi^o), cruj/eiSov, 
(TWO-TeXXco, TrjprjcrL^, vTrwTrta^w. Twice — ya/Ai^o), yoyyv^w, 8t8aK- 
Tos, cva-;(i7/Aci)v. 3 times — e^ouo-ta^w. 4 times — Siepfji.r]vev(x). 

(iii) 2 Corinthians, 197 (incl. reps. 264). 
B I. 5 (incl. reps. 5). 

+ I 6(TTpdKLV0<S. 

• I avrdpKCia. 

• 3 aTTOTo/AoJS, vavayew, o-Tparet'a. 
B 2. 15 (incl. reps. 20). 

+ I avayvtocris. 

He 9 dpKeio, d(j>i<TTr]p,t, j3apeop.aL 2,SLa(f)6€Lp(ji, iTTatpoi 2,iToip.o<; ^. fia(n\ev<;. 

a€t 2, 'i^oiOiv. 
X 5 BdKpv, P'd)(r], 6/AoXoyt'a, TrXavos, cruva7ro^v>^crKco. 

C I. 92 (incl. reps. 128). 
+ 11 dyvoriys 2, dypvTrvta 2, (3v66<;, SoXtos, €icr8e;^o/x.at C, Kara/Japeo), Kara- 

KpLCTLS 2, Trepvcri 2, TTTW^^eiJw, (rT€vo)((ap€OfJiai, 3, ij/i$vpicrix6<;- 
He 9 dveKSi^yiyros, dp/x6^op,at, eTra/couw C, r/vt'Ka 2, iXapdsC, 7ravo£!pyo9, 

TTcv^/sC, TrpoaLpeofiai, (X7rov8ato<; ^. 
X 17 dyxcTpos 2, dpprjTos, avOaipero'S 2 , iKSaTravdofxai, iK<f)o/3e(t), cTrtri/xia, 

rj8i(TTa2 ,7rapavTLKa, Trapa^povew, 7rpoa/x,apTdva)2, 7rpo(TavaTrXr]po(t}2, 

(TvXdw, o-WKard^ccrt?, crvvirefjiTrui 2, <^0JTt(r/Ads 2, i/^cvSaTrdcToXos, 

TrevraKis [TrevTaKicrp^tXiot Jus.]. 

• 55 d/3ap7ys, dyavaKTT^crts, dSpoTT^s, dvaKaXvTTTco 2, dTrapao-Kcvao-TOS, dTTCi- 

TTOv, aTTOKpLp-a, avyd^o), BiiffO's, SoXooi, Sdriys C, 8v(r(ji7]p.ia, l6vdpxf]<i, 
iK8r]p,i<ii 3, eXaTTovcco C, tXa^ptd, ivSrjfieoi 3, lvKptv(a, cvTrepiTrarew C, 
€VTn;7rdw, i^a7ropiop.aL 2, cTrevSw/Aat 2, limT66r}(xi<i 2, iTTLCTKrji'ow, 
iTepo^vyiw, €v(f>r]p.ia, iffuKviopiai 2 , iKavorrjs, Ka^tttpecri? 3> xo-Xvp.- 



144 APPENDIX I 

fjia 4> KairrjXevd), KaravapKaw 3, KaTapTL(ri<i. KaroTTTpi^ofiai, fxeTO)(TQ, 
fioXvcrfJi6<s, fJLWfjidoixaL 2, vv-)^6rj^€pov, 6)(vp<Dfxa, irpoevdpxofxai 2, 
TrpoKarapTi^w, irpocTKOTTYj, (rapyavr], (TKrjvos 2, (TKoXoxp, (TV[Jicf)(i)vr](rL<;, 
crvvaTToa-TeXXw, crvyvTrovpyiw, crvtrTariKO?, virsplSaXXovTUi?, vTrepe- 
Keiva, VTrepcKTeivd), virepXiav 2, ^etSo/xeVws, ^vcrtcacrts. 

C 2. 85 (incl reps, iir), 

+ 14 eKOvw, iXa(})p6<;, cTrtetKta, Oavjxa, KaraXaXia, Xi6dt,<j), fxipifxi'a, irapcKTOs, 
crvvoxif), \op-qyioy. Twice — arevt^co, KaXvirTU), irXd^. 4 times — 
TrpoOvfXLa. 

* 49 aTTOTaa-a-ofjuai, api<JTCp6<;, a.p-)(alo<;, /3a/)vs, j3o7]0e(D C, yivr]jxa, 8a7ravaw, 

iiL<TTr]/jiL,e(r(j}d€V, rjhiois,6vya.T7]p C, KaOaipidi), Xrj(TTT^<;,Xi0Lvo<;, /aeXas, 
//.eravoeto, fxerpeo), oTrracrta, iraXai, TravTOKparoyp, TrapaSetcro?, irapip- 
\op.aL, TrXrjOvyo}, Trora/xos, irpoip'^ofjiaL, TrpoKci/Aat, TrpocTKaipos, 
airopos, Tet;^os, Tea-crapaKovTa, t^jXikoDtos, v(3pi<;, vij/6a>, ^eiporovew, 
;(ptc!), ^lopiu). Twice — jSovX^vofxaL, ivypd<f>o/jLai, XajUTTw, ^uryri, 
[xiKpov, vr]crT€La, TrXarvvo), irX-qytj, vTr6crTa(Ti<i, (fivXaia]. 3 times — 
a(f)po(rvvr}, rpis. 5 times — Oappiw. 
X 14 cTTicrTacrts, ipyj/xia, iTOL/xw<;, rjTTdofxai, OvpL<;, KarafidXXdi, fx^rajxiXofJiai, 
oovpjxos, OLKrjTrjpiov, TTcpLaipiao, Trta^w, crKopTri^oi C, rvcfiXow, ^aXaw. 

• 8 aytorr;?, tcroTrrpov, oSoLTTopia, pal3Slt,(D, aweKSrjjxo'i, ij/vxo<;. Twice — 

ircpto"0"OJ)U.a, Trrco^cta. 

(iv) Galatians, 85 (incl. reps. 100). 
B I. o. 
B 2. 5 (incl. reps. 6). 

+ I {iTTOKptcriV. 

* 3 Pl/SXlovC, ^vy6<s, o-TvXos. 

• I p,€crLTrj<s 2. 

C I. (incl. reps. 35). 

+ 5 ySacTKatvo), lovSat^o), touSatcr/Aos 2, Kev68o^o<s, iJivKTr]pLCofiaL. 

* 6 oaKvw, et'/co), iTTLKardpaTO's 2 C, IcTTopia), Trucrixovq, (fiOovew. 
X 4 dXXrjyopeo), fxop<^6op.ai, TrarptKos, TrpoKaXio/xai. 

• 17 iOviKw<;, eKTrrvu), cTriSiaTacrcro/xat, ivirpocroiirioi, lovSaLKw^, /caTacrKOTreco, 

opOoTToSed), TrapetoraKTos, TrpoeuayyeXt'^oyaat, TrpoOecrp-La, TrpoKvpoofxat, 
TrpocravaTt'^e/tat 2, cTTiyfxa, crvvrjXiKiwTrj^, crworot^^ew, crvvvTroKpivo- 
fiai, cj>p€vaTraTd(j). 

C 2. 48 (incl. reps. 59). 

+ I iKXvojxaL. 

^31 dvaTLde/xai, avw^ev, aTroKOTTTO), apa, /3odoiC, 8Lafi^v(o, lyKpdrua, 



I 



APPENDIX I 145 

cKySaXXw Cj i/j-fjievu) C, iviavTos, e'^aipew, eTrtVpoTros, evOew;, Kara- 

yivwcTKw, Kpeixavvvfit C, fieTaTtOrjfii, ix-qvC, o/x,otos, irpoa-TLOrjfXL, prjyw- 

fll C, (TTCljOOS C, TiKTU) C, TptCtKOVTa, VTrO(TT pifjiw , (ftap/xaKM, (jiOpTlOV. 

Twice — claTTOo-TeAAw, Tapdcrcrw, ojSlvw. 3 times — Kardpa. 5 

times — iraiSLCTKrj. 
X 8 dvacTTaTow, SeKaTrevre, ivevXoyeoixat C, fxeTacrTpecfxa, (TWTrapaXafx/Sdvo), 

TiTpaKocTLOt, vTrocTTiXXo}. TwiCC — dvep)(Ofji.ai. 
• 8 aKvpoisi, i^opvcra-u), t'Sc, Traparrjpio}, tttjXlkos, irpoelSov, reKviov. Twice — 

TTOpOew. 

(v) Ephesians 93 (incl. reps. 106). 
B I. I. 

X I XovTpov. 
B 2. 8 (incl. reps. 10). 
^ 5 dvaXafji(3dv(D 2 , dTrardw, StaySoAos (subs.) 2, TratSct'a C, TL/xdojC. 
X I dcrwTta. 

• 2 aAi;crts, evayyeXiaTrjs. 
C I. 40 (incl. reps. 45). 

+ 5 dvaveooixai, iroLpLaaLa, evvoia, KXr]p6op,ai, crvvoLKoSo/Mew. 

• 5 uOios, acro</)09, lKTpi(^<a 2, kv6Tr)<i 2, p^eyeOos- 

X 4 fSiXoS, KaT(x)T€pOS, TrdXt], <TVVp.iTO')(0% 2. 

• 26 atcrxpoTiys, avoi^ts, dTTaXyi.op.ai., eAa;(tcrT0Te/30S, e^icr;)(i;w, CTrtSi^a), eVi- 

(jiava-KU), (.VTpaTTiXia, Ovpios, KaTapTiarp.6s, KXvSojVL^opiai, KO(Tp.o- 
Kpdrwp, Kpvfftrj, KvjSia, p.aKpoxp6vLO<s C, pieOoSla 2, /x€croTO(.;^ov, p.<x>po- 
Xoyia, ■7rapopyL(rp,6<;, ttoXvttolklXos, TrpocATrt'^w, TrpocTKapTipyjcns, 
pvTL'i, crvvappLoXoyiij} 2, crwTroAtVr^?, crvvcr(ap.o<i. 
C 2. 44 (incl. reps. 50). 
+ 11 uTTCtA?/, KaTOiKrjT-jpiov, p.rjKos, ocrtoTT^?, irdpoLKO?, craTrpos, tr/coTOO/tat, 
o-TTtAos, (f)payp.6<;, xapiTooi. Twice — TravoTrAta. 

• 26 (xyFota, dypvTTviw, at;^/xaAcocrta C, aKpoycovtatos, dvep.O'i, ^wpov, iK- 

TTopi.vop.ai., lirip-^opiai, ipyacria, evC, evaTrXay)(yo?, rjXiKLa, Kara/SoXrj, 
Kpavyr). 6pyii^op.ai C, 6(T(f>v'S, Trepi^wvvvp-ai, ttAcitos, 7roip.t]v, TroAireta, 
(TWTiqpiov, vhiMp, <f}p6vr](7Ls. Twice — p.aKpdv, vi]/os. 3 times — 

dp,(fiOT€pOl. 

X 4 dvirjp.1, Trarpict, x^LpoTTOirjTO'S. Twice — virepavw. 

• 3 7rpo(TKoXXdop.aL C, (TVVKaOi^u), v7roS€op.ai. 

(vi) Philippians 76 (incl. reps. 81). 
B I. 4 (incl, reps. 6). 
:jc 2 K4p8o<; 2, crepvos, 

• 2 TTpOKOmi] 2, CTTTcVSo/Aat. 

2395 T, 



146 APPENDIX I 

B 2. 5 (incl. reps. 5). 



» / 



+ I eTrtCTKOTTOS. 

3 / 



* 2 €7n€iKrjs, OTTtcro). 

X 2 eTrixo), (JTroLiSatws [-OTepwsJ. 

C I. 37 (incl. reps. 38). 
+ 10 ayi'ws, oLKaLpiofiaL, avaOdWu), iTrnroOrjTO';, einl/v)^€(u, Xrjfiif/L's, yu-cyaXcos, 
TrapaTrXrjcnov, crvvadXeo} 2, v-n-epyxj/ow. 

* 4 atcrOyjcn?, KCvoSo^La, ■rrpo(T(^Lkrj<;, (TK0Tr6<;. 

X 5 aAvTTOS, avTdpK7]<;, erepws, fJiviofxaL, TroAtreu/xa. 

* 18 aTTOUcrta, dp7ray/x,o?, yvrjcrcio?, e^avao"Tacns, c7reKT£tVo/xat, €v<f)r]fxo<;, 

l(roif/v)(os, KaTaTOfxifj, Kara^Oovios, 6KTar]fj.e.po<s, TrapafSoXevofJiai, Trapa- 
fxvOiov, TTTvpofxaL, crKv/SaXov, (rvfJifji,op(jiLt,ofxai, (rvvt,vyo<;, <Tvvixifj.rjTi]S, 
crvv\f/v)(os- 

C 2. 30 (incl. reps. 32). 
+ 5 alrvfj-a, i^avnjs, TcXetow, va-reprjcrLS, )(^opTdt,o}. 

* 18 dp€Trj, a.(r(f)a\r]<;, /3l(3Xos, yoyyiKX/Aos, SiacrTpecfiw, elXiKpivr)<i, eVrt/xo?, 

iTTiXavOdvofJiaL, tcro?, KatVep, /<;i;coi', ot/xai, TToXiTevojxai, (tkoXlo?, 
(TVvXajJi/SdvM, TaTreiVwcrts. TwiCC — ^rj/xia, jxop(f)T]. 
X 3 aFaXvw, (XTro/JatVco, (jaxxrrrjp. 

• 4 aSrjfioveu), d(f>opdw, ySeySat'oJcris. vrpaLTMpLOv. 

(vii) CoLOSSiANS 58 (incl. reps. 60). 
B I. o. 

B 2. 3 (incl. reps. 3). 
+ I TrAovcrtws. 

:<; I KpVTTTU). 

X I oiTroKei/jiaL. 
C I. 33 (incl. reps. 34). 

+ 2 aicr;^oAoyt'a, irpocriqXooi. 

* 6 dvTaTToSocrts, SoyfxaTi^ofxaL, Oeorr]?, veoixr]Via, opaTos, crTepeaufxa. 
X 5 dOvfxiu), €V)^dpi(TTO'i, TrXyjcr/xovi], cuAaywyew, <f>LXo(TO(f>ia. 

• 20 dvei//ios, drTava7rA>^poti), d7r€K8uo/Aai 2, d7reK8vo"is, d7ro;(pr/(ris, dpecTKia, 

dc^etSta, f^pa/Sevoi, lOi-XodprjcrKLa, elprjVOTroLiu), ifxfSaTevoi, Kara- 
/Spa/Sevo), yutraKtveoj, /jio/x<j)-^, irapiqyopLa, TriOavoXoyia, irpoaKOvoi, 
7rpwTev(x}, (TMixaTLKws, \eLpoypa<^ov. 
C 2. 2 2 (incl. reps. 23). 
+ 6 yevofxaL, Swa/xow, 7rapaAoyi^o/xai, inKpaivw, TcAciorJ^s. Twice — 
OTJi'SovAos. 

* 10 aTTOKpLvofxaL, aTTOKpvcfiO?, h>raXp.a, i^aXeccfiM, koprrj, Oprja-KCia, Opovos, 

larpds, KA'^pos, ttovos. 



APPENDIX I 147 

X 2 (TKld, {'TTSI'aVTtOS. 

* 4 uAa?, dprvw, htty jx.a.TLt,(a, ^lyyavco. 

(viii) I Thessalonians 41 (incl. reps. 47). 
B I. I. 

X I r]7rL0<;. 

B 2. 7 (incl. reps. 8). 

+ 2 vrjffno 2 , Trapayy^Xia. 

>k 4 a.vTi\oixai, yacrr^p, evaj'rtos, 6</)tcrT>//At • 

X I SLafjLapTvpojJiat. 

C I. 20 (incl. reps. 23). 

+ I oAoTeAt/?. 

jjc 5 a/jie/x-TTTCos 3) i-vajxivM, araKTOS, ueodtdaKTOS, ocrtcus. 

X 4 €/<8tojK(ij, 6Xiydi//^i;;!(o?, TrepiAetVo/Aai 2, rpocfios. 
. * 10 a.Trop(fiavL^(i}, €vopKLC,(u, e^T^^eo/xat, KiX^vcrfxa, KoXaKia, 6/x€tpo/Aat, Trpo- 
7rao-;!(co, crat'vo/Aat, avfjicjivXeTr]';, vTrepjSaLvw. 

C 2. 13 (incl. reps. 15). 
+ I dcrc^aAeta. 

* 9 ate^vtSto?, dAT^^tvo?, aXrjOm, i7(n;_)(d^oj, KTaojxai, 6X6KXr]po<;, Totyapovv, 

w8lv, etcroSos 2. 

* 3 aTravrrjo-LS, ap)(dyy€Xo^, TrapafxyOiO/xat 2. 

(ix) 2 Thessalonians 26 (incl. reps. 31). 
B I. r. 

* I e7rt^dj'€ta. 

B 2. 4 (incl. reps. 6). 

* 4 d^cdw, ■r](Tv^ia, Kpicns, fiiqTe 3. 

C I. 10 (incl. reps. 12). 
+ 4 draKTW? 2, kvKav\a.OjxaL, irepLepyd^o/xaL, a-rjixeioofxaL. 

* I TlVoj. 

* 5 draKTeo), eVSciy/xa, ivSoid^ofiai 2, KaAoTroiew, VTr^pavqdvoi. 

C 2. II (incl. reps. 12). 

* 7 dvat/De'oj, droTros, StK?;, Karaftdo/xai, ixi/x^ofxaL 2 , craXevw, </)Ad^. 
X 2 dTTOCTTacrta, (Tej3a(Tp.a. 

* 2 i-mcrvvaywy^, Opoiop-ai. 

(x) Philemon io (incl. reps. 10). 
B I. I. 
+ I €v)(prj<TTO';. 

B 2. I. 

L 2 



148 APPENDIX I 

C I. 5 (incl. reps. 5). 
+ I cKowios (Mar. i). 

* 2 u^rj(TTO<;, ovivcLfjiai. 

• 2 aTTOTtVo), 7rpocro(^€iA.co. 

C 2. 3 (incl. reps. 3). 
^ 2 dvaTre/ATTOJ, £7rtTao"(rw. 
X I ^evla. 

D. 

A 2. 131 Non-Paiiline words shared by the Pastorals with the 

individual books of the N. T. 
(Words underlined, and numbers bracketed, in one N. T. book only.) 

(i) = I Tim. only. (iv) = i and 2 Tim. 

(ii) = 2 Tim. only. (v) = i Tim. and Titus, 

(iii) = Titus only. (vi) = 2 Tim. and Titus, 

(vii) = I and 2 Tim. and Titus. 

(1) Matthew, (i) d/xcXew, StTrXdos, €i(T<f)epix), €//.7rt7rTw, iirJKOvra, iTriXafji- 
/Sdvoynat, iTTLTiOrjixi, 6vrj<jKia, yaapyap 1x775, viVto), Trpodyu), Trpoo'epxofJ-a.t, irpoa- 
//.evo), vfSpL^o), v(TT€po<; : (u) yewpyos, eTrtripdo), KpiTrj';, Xlav, fxrjiroTe, arpa- 
TiwTrjs, xaXtTTo?, )(^eifxwv : (iii) vo/xikos (subs.), TraXivyeveaLa, vyL7J<; : (iv) 
•)((.ipoyv '. (v) dpyos, Koajxiw, 7rpe(r(3vTepo<;, Trpoaixu) : (vi) airta, ttoiki'Aos : 
(vii) apveofJiai. 34 (3) 

(2) Mark, (i) dTroTrXavdw, iK(f)€p(x), l^rjKOVTa, [eTraKoXou^ewJ, iTTLXajx/Sdvo- 
fjiai, liTL(TTajxaL, iTrtTidrjfxi, OvrjaKuy, vcott^?, i'ltttw, 7rapaSeT(op,at, voXvTeXrj'S, 
TTpodyu), irpodip^^Ojxai, 7rpo(r/xeVw, ttukvos (?) : (ii) yewpyds, e7rtTtp.dw, etiKatpw?, 
XtW, fxyirore, crTpaTLwrrj?, \^Lpi(jiv '. (iii) 6-qpiov, vyLrj<i : (iv) ySt'os, [Trapa- 
KoXov^ewJ, ^ctpwv : (v) 7rp€o-/8iJT£pos, fxapTvpLa ; (vi) atrt'a, ttocklXo^ : (vii) 
apveofxai, Trapatreo/xat. 3[4j/32 (2) 

(3) Luke (not Acts), (i) (^vOit^u}, e/XTrtTTTw, iiyKOvra, eTTtyueXco/xat, o-cop,a- 
TtKd9 : (il) dvoia, d;)^dpi(jTOS, yeo)pyd9, e7rtTtp,dto, ^wypeco, KaKovpyo?, Atav, 
^iXdpyupos : (iii) rjSovyj, AftVw, XvrpoofxaL, voixlkos (subs.) : (iv) )8tos, 
TrapaKoXovOew [ + ? Mark], ^^etpcov : (v) KO(rp,eaj : (vi) TroLKLXo<;,v7rofJ.ifjivrj(7Ku), 

(vii) vyiaivu). 24 (9) + 32 (8) Luke and Acts = 56 (17) 

(4) John. (1) iTTLTiOrjfxi, 6v^aK(D, tp,aTt(r/Ads, vltttw, 7rpoaep)^ofJiai : (ii) 
yewpyds, pd^o/x.at, pcevroL, p,7/7roTe, vop^rj, (rrpaTtoJTT^s, )(€ifxwv : (iii) fjnaivu), 
{lyiTys : (iv) ;^€tpa)v : {v) Karrjyopia, fxaprvpia, vewrepos, 7rpe(r/8vT€pos (?) : (vi) 
aiTia, dvaTpcTTco (?), Tre.pd(jTqp.L, vTro/Ai/AVi/crKa) ; (vii) dpviop.ai, ^T^rr^crts. 

25(3) 



APPENDIX I 149 

(5) Acts (not Luke), (i) ayaOoepyeu), eTrcVra/Aat, evepyecria, ev(re/3iw, 

/AeAerao), irapahi)(OfJiat, Trept'epyo?, TrepL€p)(Ofxai, irpocrfxivw, cra}<f>po(Tvi'rj : (ii) 

apyvpeos, SpofJiO^, i^apTL^w, //.ci^o^at, yutcTaAayupavcu, TrpoTrerr/?, T^et/xwi' : 

(iii) OrjpLov, I'ocrcfii^oiJiai, TreiBap)(eo}, vyirjs, ^iXavOpoiTrCa : (iv) /3X.d(Tcf>7jixo<;, 

c7rt'^€(Tts : (v)o(rtos: (vi) Trcptto-TT/p-t : (vii) CLicre/Jeta, ^y^rr^crts. 

28 (12) + 32 (8) Luke and Acts = 60 (20) 

(6) Luke and Acts, (i) arrtAa/x^ai'o/xat, SwdcrTrjs, il(T(fi€poi, iK(f)epw, iin- 
(TKOTrrj, t,u)oyoveo), iTTLTiOyjfxt, OvrjcrKw, ljxaTi(Tp.6<i, ve6Tr]<;, iTTLXafx/Sdvofxat, vojxo- 
8tSacr/<aAo9, 7rept7roteo//.at, Trpecr/SvTepLov, Trpoayw, 7rpo(rep)^OfxaL, 7ru/<i'ds, 
v/Spl^oi '. (ii) fjpecf>o<;, KpiTri<;, ixr]TroT€, TrpoSorv/s, (rTpaTtwrr/s : (iii) eTrt^atVw : 
(v) fj.apTvpLa, veojT€p09, 7rpe(Tl3vT€po<;, Trpocre'^i^w : (vi) atria : (vii) dpveop.at, 
Seo-TTOTr/s, TTapaiTiofiai. 32 (8) + 24 (9) Luke + 28 (12) Acts = 84 (29) 

(7) Hebrews, (i) dfx^Xiw, air6\av(ji<i, d<^tAapyupos, yvp.v6.t,<ji, €l(T(f)epo), 
jEKcpipo), ijjLTrLTrTUi, iTTiXafjifSdvofxai, £7rt'crTap.ai, dpeyop,at, 7rapa8e)(OfJ.ai, Trepis'p- 
y^OfJML. Trpoayw, TrpoSrjXo^, Trpo(T€p)(OixaL '. (ii) KpLTr]S, Aetov, p,€TaAa/x/?dvco, 
fXTJiroTC, (rrepeos, crTecf^avou), )(pva-eos '• (iii) dvco^eA>js, Q-qpiov, Koa-fJitKO<;, fxiatvoj : 
(iv) /Se/SrjXo'i, eKxpeVop-ai, kTrCOecTLS, \up(iiv '. (v) dviJTroTaKTOS, ocrto?, Trpecr- 
/3vTepo<;, 7rpocre;^w : (vi) ama, uTroAetTrw, TrotKt'Aos : (vii) apviofxat, Trapat- 
Teofxai. 39 (10) 

(8) I Peter, (i) d'o-TrtAo?, iiraKoXovOid) [ + ? Mark], iiria-KOTr-^, r](rvxio<s, 
AotSopta. TToAvreAT^s, 7rpo(rep^op.ai : (ii) ySpet^os, Ae'wv, crT€pi.6^ : (lil) Avrpoo- 
/x,at : (v) Koa-fxeo), vedirepos, Trpecr/SvTepos, ^lAdf evo? : (vi) ttoikiAos : (vii) 
Seo-TTOT'/^S. 17 (4) 

(9) 2 Peter, (i) dcrTrtAo?, ftpaSvvco, yv/xvd^o) : (ii) epTrAeV-w, cro(f)i^o). vtto- 
ixvrja-i? : (iii) avBd8rj<;, rjSovr'i : (iv) (3Xd(r(jir]fxo'S, Krjpv$, -^upwy : (v) dpyds, 
•7rpocre;^w ; (vi) virofJUfJLvrjcrKix} : (vii) dpveo/xai, SecrTrdTr/?, euo"e/3eta, fivOo^. 
r+? KaracTTpofjirj, KaracftOeipoixatj, 18 (7) 

(10) James. (1) d<nriXo?, i-n-LaTafxai, KTLO-fxa, cnraTaXdo) : (ii) yewpyd?, 
KaKorraOid), KpirrjS, ixd)(Ofj.ai, jxivTOi '. (iii) rjSovrj, OrjpLOV, AetVoJ : (v) dpyds, 
Trpecr/SL'Tepos : (vi) TTOiKt'Aos. 1 5 (2) 

(11) I, 2, 3 John, (i) Trpodyo) : (ii) Aiav : (iv) yScos : (v) p,apTupta, Trpecr- 
/Surepos : (vi) vTvofXLfxvi^aKix) : (vii) dpveo/xat, I'ytatVcu. 8 

(12) Jude. (i) iTTLCTTaixat. : (ii) linTLfxdw, fxivTof. (iii) p,tatVoj : (vi) aTro- 
AetTTOj, vTTo/xiixvrjcrKU) : (vii) apviofxai, Sco'Trdrr/s. 8 

(13) Revelation, (i) SiTrAdos, k^rjKOVTa, iTTLTiOrj/xi, KTi(Tf/.a, fj.apyapiTr]<5 : 
(ii) dpyvpeos, Ae'wF, ^Aii/o?, ^vcrcos: (iii) OrjpLoV. (v) KO(rfj.eo}, fxaprvpia, dcrtos, 
7rpecrf3vT€po<;: (vii) dpveofxai, Se(r7rdT7js. 16 (l) 



150 • APPENDIX I 



E. 

(A i) Hapax Legomciia and {K 2) other Non-Pauline ivords shared 
by the Pastorals zuith Apostolic Fathers and Apologists. 211. 

(1) I Clem. : A l. 21. (i) dyi/tta, aTrepavTos, eVrev^^s, Trpo'cr/vAto-ts : (ii) 
dywy?^, aOXiio, di'a^wTriipea), avaXvcri';, airaio^vTO'i, evowcu, KaTacrTpo<^iq, 
TricrToofJiaL : (iii) f^SeXvKr6<s, Trepiovcnov, CTTvyr^ros, (T(UT7Jpio? : (iv) dvocrtos : (v) 
crefxvoTr]?, crwcjipoiv : (vi) eucreyffcos : (vii) ox^eAi/xos. 

A 2. 42. (i) aTToXaucrts, f^vOl^w, eKe^epo), ifXTTLTTTw, eTraKoXovOid). liricrKOirri, 
eTTicrTafxai, eicpyecrta, i^o-i^^^^to?, I'eor?;?, Trapahe^^ojxai. TreptTroieo/xai, 7rp6Sr]Xo<;, 
7rpocrepxojj.at, crojcjipocrvvr] : (li) Spo/jcos, KpiT-qs, Xewv, Ai'av, fxeraXafji/Sdvo}, 
fxrjiroT€, vofXTj, irpOTrer-qs '. (iii) avOdSrj?, iTncjiaLvw, Orjptov, XvTpoofxai, ttoXlv- 
yevecrt'a : (iv) /Sto?, Krjpv^ : (v) dpyos, Kocrfxeu), pLapTvpua, octlos, Trpe<7J3vT€po<;, 
Trpoue)(u>, <f)iX6^evos : (vi) alria, dTroAetVo), vTrop.Lp.vrj(TK(x> : (vii) 8ecr7roT?/s, 
cvcrefSaa. 63 

(2) 2 Clem.: A I. 7. (i) cVrer^ts, Oeoa-e/SeLa, cjuXapyvpla : (ii) d^Xew, 
(BeXTLOv : (iii) eyKparr^s : (iv) dcrrop^eco, 

A 2 . 2 1 . (i) dTToXavcri?, acTTrtXos, y v/avoi^w, TrapaSexop-ai, 7rpo(rip)(Ojj.ai : 
(ii) avoia, KaKOTraOioj. Kptrv^?, p.eTaXap./3di'M, crT€(f>av6io ; (iii) i^Sovi^, koct/xi/cos, 
XvTpoopat : (iv) yStos : (v) ocrtos, TrpccrfSvTepos, 7rpo(re;(co : (vi) atria : (vii) 
apveo/xai, €vcre/3eLa, p.vdo';. 28 

(3) Ignatius: A l. 13. (i) dyveta, IrepoSiSao-KaXe'w, irpavTrdOeia, [Trpecr- 
(SvrepLov = Christian Presbytery] : (ii) di/a^toTrvpe'cj, dvavT^^w, avaif/vx'^i 
ivSvvw, v€(j}TepLK6<;, ■^pyjaifxo'; : (ill) dij/€v8-^<;, KardcrTT^/xa, cj^povri^a) : (v) Stdyw. 

A 2. 26. (i) d/xeXcw, eyu,7ri7rT(jD, iTraKoXov0€(i),iTrL(TKO7n], fxapyapiTri<;, /xeXerdw, 
TrapaSe^oywat. Trpicr/SvTipLor, Trpodyio, cr(i)(f)pocrvv7] : (ll) op6p.o<;, Xtav, pufjiroTe, 
crocjiL^o) : (iii) di'to^eXi^Sj 7;8ot7^, OrjpLov, XetTrto, XvTpoo/jiaL : (iv) ySto?, eKxpeVo), 
)(eLp(jiv : (v) Koa-fxeo), TrpecrySvTcpo?, Trpoa-e^w : (vil) dpviojxai. 39 

(4) Polycarp : A l. 6. (i) dyreia, StAoyos, p-araioXoyLa, cfaXapyvpia : 
(iii) iyKpaT7J<;: (vii) Sid^oXo? (adj.). 

A2. 14. (i) dp-eXeo), dTTOTrXai/dto, d(J3LXdpyvpo<;, ctcr^c'pw, eKcfiepo), i-jraKO- 
XovOeo), XotSopta, Trpodyo) : (ii) KpiTT^s, ;)^aXe7ros : (iii) TreiOap)(^eio '. (v) 
ve<iiT£po<s, Trpea-fSvrepos '■ (vi) dTroXeiTTCo. 20 

(5) Martyrdom of Polycarp : A i. 4. (i) dvtTr(.X7]p.iTTo^ : (ii) 8€Xta, /jii^Sc- 
7roT€ : (iii) di//-ev)S7^s. 

A 2. 18. (i) avTiXafx/SdvofxaL, /SpaSvvao, ttoXutcXi^s, irpodyw, Trpo(repxop.ai : 
(11) Xccov, aTe(f)av6u>, ^aXcTros : (iii) Orjpiov, Koo-yutKos : (iv) /3tos, Kiqpv^, 
)(€ip(x>v : (v) Koafxeoj, fxapTvpta, Trpoare^^ta : (vi) ttoikiXos : (vii) apveofxai. 2 2 



APPENDIX I 151 

(6) Didache : A r. 3. (i) Siwkttjs : (iii) opyiAos : (iv) do-To;(eoj. 

A 2. 18. (i) arroXavai'S, d<^tXapyi'pos, elo-ffiepu), rj(rv)(io^, ip,aTi<r/x.os, v€OT>;s, 
Trpo(Tep-^Ofx.aL, o-w/AaTiKo? : (ii) KpLTrj<;, Xtav, /xaxo/jiai, <f)tXdpyvpo<s, fXTjiroTC : 
(iii) av0d8r]<s, koo-jjlcko?, XvTpoofxat : (v) dpyo?, irpocrex^i) '• (vii) SecrTroT?;?. 2 1 

(7) Barnabas: A l. 4. (i) Slmktt]?: (ii) evSwo), eTrto-wpevw, fjc-qS^Trore. 

A 2. 24. (i) iTTio-Ta/jLai, linTiOrjfXi, 7jcrv)^io<;, l/jLaTicr/JiO'S, /xeXeTaw, vcott^s, 
TToAuTeA?;?, CTTraTaAdw : (il) KpLTrjs, fJid^op.ai, fjirJTroTe, vojxri, (ro^t'^co, crrepeo?, 
(TTet^avow : (iii) Orjptov, XvTpoofxai : (v) dpyos, jxapTvpia, veu)Tepos, irpeafiv- 
T^pos, Trpocre^u) : (vi) vTrofXip-vrjcrKoj : (vii) Sea-iroTrjs. 28 

(8)Hermas: A l. 21. (i) ctyveta, aAAws, /SXafSepos, eXarrov (adv.), eV- 
T€v^t5, vTre prrXeovdl^u) : (ii) fBeXxLOV, SeiAt'a, evStVo), KaTa^OeipopLai, ixrjhiirore, 
7rpayfiaT€ca, ;^aAKevs, ■)(jyq<jijxo<i : (iii) eyKpar?^?, eKcrrpe'^co, Trpecr/JvTts, 
(ftiXoreKvos '. (iv) TrapaKaraO-qKr] : (v) ae/j-vorr]? : (vii) w<^eAt/xos. 

A 2. 54. (i) avTiXafx^dvo/xai, dTroirXavdui, acTTrtAos, ^paSvvoi, SittAoos, 
^IfTffiipw, IpjTLTTTi^y, iTTiXaix/SdvofxaL, eTTLCTTafjiai, iTTVTiOrjfxi, rjcrv)(LO<;, OvrjcrKO), 
tp artcr/xos, KTicr/xa, 7rapa8e^o/xai, Trept'epyo?, 7rept7roteop,ai, TroADxeAi^s, Trpotrep- 
)(OfxaL, OTTraTaAdw : (ii) (3pe(fiO<;, ifXTrXeKo/Mai, Kpirrjs, AtW, p,€TaAap.^avw, 
jxivTOi, ix7]TroT€, TrpoSoTT]';, CTTe<^avo(j, vfxofJLvrjcns, )(aXe7ro<;, ;^et/xwi/, )(pv(r€OS : 
(iii) dvw<^€Ar/s, avOdSrj^, rjSovrj, Or]pLOV, AetVoj, Xyrpoo/xai, p,tatVw, VQ<j<^it,op.ai, 
{lyiTjs : (iv) /3Xda(f)rjfjios, X'^ipuiV '. (v) dpyos, Koo-p,ea), fxapTvpia, v€ioT€po<;, irpea- 
(BvTepos, </)tAo^6vos : (vi) alria, TrotKt'Ao? : (vii) dpviofxaL, Sia-TroTrjs. 75 

(9) Ep. ad Diognetum : A l. 7. (i) dTroScKTOS, Oeoa-efieia, 6p,oAoyovp.eV(n)S, 
TCKvoyoveo) : (ii) yorj?, ^aXKevs '. (iii) crorr'^pLO'S. 

A 2. 20. (i) d/AcAea), iTTLarapLaL, evepyeaia, KTiafia, 7rapaSe;!(0/xat : (ii) 
dpyijpcos, Sp6ixo<;, [xeTaXafj.j3dv(i.>, ;^pijcr€OS : (iii) rjSovy], OrjpLOV, TreiOap)(€0), 
cj)iXavOp(j}Trta : (iv) /Jt'os : (v) koct/aco) : (vi) alrta, ttoikiAos : (vii) a.pv€Ofxai^ 
SecrTTOTTjs^ 7rapatTeop,at. 27 

(10) Papias : A l. I. (v) Sia^e/SaioofxaL. 

A 2. 3. (ii) fxi.vTOL : (iv) TrapaKoXovOew : (v) Trpecr^OTcpos. 4 

(12) Aristeides : A i. r. (iii) opyiAos. 

A 2. 6. (ii) dvoia, x^L/xwv : (iii) dvw^cAr;?, ixiaivw. (iv) ;(etpwv : (vi) 

pLv6o<i. 7 

(13) Tatian : A l. 19. (i) aAAw?, dp.0L/3rj, dTrpocriTO?, deocre/Seia, jxo- 
voo/xaL, vocriu), vcTrepo^, cfuXapyvpia, i/'tuSoAoyos : (ii) d^Aeoj, d^par?;?, yoT^s, 
7rpayp,aTeta, Xpr]<XLixo^ '. (iii) Trpeo-ySurts : (v) TrAr/Krr^s, (refxv6-rr]S, ordxftpwv : 
(vii) co<^eAip.os. 

A 2. 42. (i) dTToAavo-t?, CK<^epw, iTrtTLOrjfxi, evepyeaia, ^woyove'co, Ovrja-Kta, 
Xoihopia, /xeAcTau), opiyofxat, irpodyw, TrpoaepxofxaL : (ii) d;)(dpio-Tos, (Spitpo?, 
Spop-os, ^cuype'to, KpiTT^s, Aewv, Ai'ai', p.€TaXap.(3dvw. (TT€<f)av6io, ^tAapyvpos, 



152 APPENDIX I 

^aAcTTOS, xeiixdn', ^^piio-eo? : (iii) rj^ovrj, Kocr/xi/cos : (iv) /?€/Sr;Aos, /3t'os, Krjpv^. 
TrapaKoXovOio) : (v) fxaprvpia, v€ajT€/)09, ocno?, Trpecrf3vTepo<;, irpoai^oi '. (vi) 
aiTta, TTOiKiAos.: (vii) apviop-ai, Sicnrorrj'S, t,r]Tr]cri'i, p.v6o<;, Tra/aaireo/xat. 6 1 

(14) Justin: A 1.40. (i)aA.A.a)9, d/xot/?7/,di'Spo^oi'09, d7r€pavTOS,d7ro8eKTOS, 
d7ro8o;;(r;, Starpo^?^, eVreu^is, iTrLOpKos, Oeocrefiua, KaTaXeyo/xat, KocrfJiLO^, 
fx€TdXr]ixif/L<;, pr]Tw<s, if/evBoXoyo^ : (ii) aKpaTr)<i, dvc^tKa/cos, airoTpi'rrop.at, 
JUXtlov, Ivovvoi, KaracfiOeipio, p-rjoe-KOTC, (fitXavTO<;, ^tX->y8ovo5, (fyiXoueos, 
)(firicnfxo<; : (iii) eK(rTpe<^oyu,ai, ioi;8aiK09, crcoT7^p[09, cruxfipovLl^ix), crco0povw9, 
<fipovTi^oj : (iv) dvoo"to9, Trpoyovoi, rv^oo/xat : (v) ^laf^efSatoofxai., Stdyoo, 
(rw<^p(ji)i' : (vi) dvaTpeTTw : (vii) w<^eAtjU,09. 

A 2. 76. (1) dyueXeo), dyTtXa//./5dvo/xat, dTroTrXavdo), do"7riXo9, StTrXdos, owd- 
(TTTjs, ilcrcjiepo}, €K<^epa), ifXTTLirTw, eTraKoXovOeo), e7rtXa/x/3dvo/xat, lirLTLOyjjJi.i, 
eTTLfjiiXofxaL, liriaKOTrrj, e7rto"Tayu,at, evaefSiw, BvqcrKw, Lp.aTicrfx6<;, KTicr/xa, 
//-eXeTcici), veoTT^s, opeyo/xat, 7rapa8e;)/op,at, 7rept€pyo9, Trpodyw, Trpo(rep)(OfxaL, 
Trpo(Tfxiv<ji, cruxjipocrvvr) : (ii) dvoia, d;^dpto-T09, yewpyd9, eTriTi/xdw, KaKovpyos, 
KptTi79, Xewv, fxd)(0fjiat, fxeraXa/jifSdvoi, fxivTOi, p-rjiroTe, ^vXtvos, cro^i^o/xat, 
(TTepeds, (TTpaTL(i)Trjs, xaX€7rd9, XP^''''f09 : (iii) dv(i}(}ieXrj<;, rjSovrj, Brjpiov, XctVw, 
XvTp6ofj.aL, fj-LaLVW, Trct^ap^ew, ■iiyi7^9, (fnXavOpunria : (iv) ^to9, (3Xda(f)r]p.os, 
cKTpeTTO/xat, KTjpv^, TrapaKoXovOeoy, ■^(f.ipwv '. (v) KaTrjyopia, Kocr/xew, p-aprvpLa. 
vf-diTf-pos, ocTLOs, TTp^a/SvTepo?, TTpoaiyw : (vi) ama, aTroXetTrw, ttolklXo'? '. (vil) 
dpV€op.ai, Bc(nr6Tr]<;, eva-efteia, t,r)Tr]o-L<;, p.vOo<;, 7rapaLTeop.at. 116 

(15) Atlienagoras : A i. 22. (i) ai8(09, dXXw9, di/8po(/>di'09, dven-iXy^jXTTTO'i, 
aTrpoatTOS, eKyovo?, evrpec^o/xat, r/pefio'i, ^eocre/^cta, KaTaXeyojxaL, vocrcw, 
vTrdvota : (ii) dve^6'Ka/<09^ dv^fxepos, TrtcrToo/Aai, irpayp-aT^ia, (f>iX60eo^ : (ill) 
dij/evS-q'; : (iv) dvdcrio9, Trpdyovot : (v) 8iayw : (vi) crdxjipiDv. 

A 2. 37. (i) dfxeXeM, e/XTTtTTTco, e7ri/xeXoju,at, evepyecrta, i70'i;;(t09, 6vi](Tkw, 
XoiSopta, TrapaSixpfJiai, 7r6pt£pyo9, Trpoctyw, 7rpo(rep)(op.aL : (ii) yecopyd9, Xt'oji/, 
fiivTOL, ivXivos, crre^ardw, ;^aX€7rd9 : (iii) •i78ov'>/, OrjpLOV, KocrfXLKOs, cfaXav- 
OpoiTTta : (iv) ^109, TrapaKoXovOeo), ^eipiov : (v) Kar-qyopia, Kocrpiioj, vedyrepoi, 
0(Ti09, 7rpeo"/3i»T€po9, irpocrexM : (vi) alria, vTrop.Lp.vr](TKO) : (vu) 8£cr7rdT7^9, 
cvcrifS^La, fJivOos, Trapaireo/xai. 59 

(16) MelitO : A i. 2. (i) eTrtTrXT^o-o-oj : (iv) Trpdyovot. 

A 2. 3. (i) ip.7ri7rTw, eTrtVra/xat : (vii) ^y'jTrjai'S. 5 

(17) Dionysius Cor.: A i. (ii) dvai/^i'^w : (v) 8iayw. 2 



APPENDIX I T53 



F. 



132 Words fotuid in more than one Pmdine Epistle, bnt not in 

the Apostolic Fathers. 

Only nine of these occur in the Pastorals (B r. 3, B 2. 6). 

• 73 of these are wanting also in the Apologists, and of these only 
one d7'V7rd/<ptT09 (Rom., 2 Cor., i and 2 Tim.) occurs in the Pastorals. 

The number after each word indicates the number of Pauline epistles 
in which it occurs. Where no number is given, the word is in two 
Paulines only. 

(i) Rom. 68 (.38). 

B I. 2. (i) Trpovoe'w : (ii) evoiKcw 3. 

B 2. 3. (i) Trapot/cXT/o-ts 7 • (ii) aTToXoyta 3 : (iv) • (dvuTro/cpiros S 
C I. 28 (• 19) ayidicrvvT) 3, StacrroXi;, gkSlkos, Kpeas, irapa^rjXoo}, irapcKrep- 
^0/x.at, Td)(a, Troirjjxa, cjiOoyyos, • {airoKapahoKta, hoKifxyj, Suvarew, 
cXXoyaw, evSct^is 3, €var)(rjp.6v(ii<i 3, rjTT-qjxa, KaTokXayrj, KaTaXAdcro-w 3, 
Trpoe7rayy€XXoiJiaL,Trpo(ray(j}yrj,anjixfj.op(fio<;,crvvai)(jJLdX.(OTO<s ^, crvvOaTTTO- 
fxai, vloOeaia 3, VTrepTrepLcrcrevu), vif/ui/xa, cfuXoTLfxeofxai 3, (fivpafxa 3). 

C 2. 35 (• 1 3) eKTrtTTTw, Kpdt,o}, pMpaiVM, veKpoo), TTOcris, crvvKXeioi, (jipdcTfrui, 
Kado, dvTairohihMjXL 3, dirocTToXiq 3, acfiopL^oy 3, ivKOTTTW^, 6r](Tavpit,(j}^, 
dTToXvTpcocrts 4, (f)6dvw 4, <f)iXr]fxa 4, Kotvojvta 6, • (^d/3(3d, yv/Avdrr/s, 
Ka)//.os, dKv>7pds, Trapa(SdTy]<;,'7T€pL(r<r€La, 7rwp(jDcri^,avvaTrdyofj.ai,(rvv(TTav- 
p6<i), i(f)d7rai, ov, dvdOep.a 3, ckSikt^ctis 3, irpoepS) 3, dTreKSe)(OfJiaL 4, 
evSoKt'a 4, CTTT^Kw 6, criTepyds 7)- 

(2) I Cor. 49 (• 20). 

B I. I. (v) dv€yKX>;TO?. 

B 2. 4. (i) TrapdKXrjcrt'S "J : (ii) dTroXoytd 3, dvo/Aa^w 3, ^wrt^oj. 

C I. 15 (• 8) StacTToXT/, Kpeas, Trapa^r/Xdw, (TvvavafxiyvvfxaL, crvvKpivu), cf)ave- 

pwcrts, (f)66yyo^, • (ctXtKpivta, rjTTrjpia, TratSaywyd?, oreyw, (f)vpa[xa, 

€V(T)(r)ix6vw'S 3, KaraXXdcrcroj 3, fXiTa<T)(r]fji.aTL^(j} 3). 
C 2. 29 (• 12) evcpyrys, iSiwrr]?, KaOevSa), KaraTrtVco, fxeOvo), p,wpatVa), Trapa- 

CTKevd^oj, Ka^d, o'/aw?, dTroo-roX?; 3, ^Tycravpt^w 3 , (rv[j.f3if3dt,(j)^, if/aXp-os^, 

TrXrjv 3> dTroXnTpaxjiS 4) 4'iXrjp.a 4, KOivcovtu 6, • (d7rpdo"K07ros, ^v/jido), 



154 APPENDIX I 

KpaTaLoojj.ai, c<^a7ra^, ov, avdOefxa 3, dcnra(TiJ.6<s 3, Travovpyia 3, evt 3, 
dTr€K8€)(0fjiaL 4, (TTi^Kw 6, cTwepyos 7). 

(3) 2 Cor. 48 (• 29). 

B I. 2. (1) Trpoi'oe'w : (ii) evot/ceo) 3. 

B 2. 3. (i) TrapaKXrjaL? J : (ii) aTToAoyta 3 : (iv) • (dvvTroKpiTOs). 

C I. 25 (•19) dynocrvvrj ^, OpLufx/Sevu), vorj/xa ^, a-vvKpcvoy, vTrepaipofjiaL, 
0avepw(rt9, • {dvaKpa'w, Soki/xt/ 3, Swarso}, elXiKpLVM, o'Setfis, eTrt- 
papew 3, ipeOi^io, LKavow, taoTT^s, KoraWayrj, KaraSovXow, kutuX- 
Aao-crw 3, Ki^poo), ixeTaa-xrjfjiaTi^o) 3, TrpoiirayyeXXofxaL, aTeXXo/xaL, 
VTrepirepLcrcrevo), vif/oi/xa, (^tXoTifJiiojxai 3). 

C 2. 18 (• 9) l8n!)T7]?, KaraTTivw, TrapaaKevd^w, (^pdcrcrw, d(J3opL^<ji 3, Orjaav- 
pL^ui 3, (pOdrw 4, (j)iXrjp.a 4, KOivw^ta 6, • (d^cipoTrotT^TOS, yi^/AvoTi^s, 
oeKaTecrcrapes, Trepicrcreia, eKStKT^crts 3, iravovpyia 3, Trpoepd 3, irepur- 
(roT€p<ji)<; 4, crwepyos y)- 

(4) Gal. 33 (.21). 
B I. o. 

B 2. I. (i) dvacTTpocjirj. 

C I. 8 (• 7) dX?^^ei;ti), • {evdp)(oixaL, KaraSovXcw, Kvpou), TratSaywyos, Trap- 
eLcrep^ofxai, vloOecria ^, (fivpa/xa ^). 

C 2. 24 (• 14) dj/aA6(TKW, iKirLTTTW, ive)(li>, Kpd^M, CrVVKXeLM, OyU,aJS, aTTO- 

(TToA')/ 3, d(jiopLt,(i> 3, ej/KOTTTW 3, KOtvwvt'a 6, • (^d/3/3d, 8e/<aTecro-ap€s, 
^vfjiow, KWyu-os, TrapafSaTrj'i, irpoeLTTOv, (TvvaTrdyop.ai, crvvcrTavpou), dvd- 
Oep-a 3, vrpoepS) 3, evt 3, d7reKSe';^o^at 4, 7r€piaaoTep(i)<; 4, crrt^Kw 6). 

(5)Eph. 3i(.i6). 
B I. o. 
B 2. 3. (i) dva(TTpo(j>ri : (ii) 6vo[xdt,w ^, ^cort'^w. 

C I. l4(»lo) dXr]6ev(x), av^rj(TL<;, iroi-qp.a, vfxvo'5, • (dTrOKaraXAdcrcra), ct^iy, 
eiTL'^op-qyia, OdXirw, 6<^6aXfjio8ovXLa, Trpocraywy?/, pi^oo/jiaL, (rvvt,wo- 
TTOteo), vloOicfia 3, vTrepeKTreptaaov). 

C 2. 14 {• 6) Sd/Lia, 6(j}pa$, o-f^ewvixL, w8rj, crw/3i/?d^w 3, li'aA/xds 3, 7rX7/v 3, 
dTroXtJrpwcrts 4, • (/cpaTatdo/xat, iJLe6v(TK0fJi.aL, 7rwpwo"t?, Travovpyia 3, 
TTcpiTTon^o-ts 3, eiSoKLa 4). 

(6) Phil. 24 (• 16). 
B I. o. 

B 2. 2. (i) TrapaKAT^crts 7 : (ii) dTroAoyca 3. 

C I. 10 (• g)v6r]p.a, • (dTTOKapaSoKtct, 8oKt/A7^3, eAAoydw, evotp^o/xai, cvSct^t?, 
iTn)(^oprjyLa, peTacr^^r^/xart^w 3, (TVjXfxop(jiO<i, crvv(TTpaTL(i}TT]?). 



I 



APPENDIX I i55 

C 2. 12 (• 7) SofJ-a, TTp64>acn<5, ttAt/v 3, t^OavM 4, kolvwvmG, • {airp6(rKOTro<;, 
oKVYipos, d7reK8e'xo/u,at 4, e{i8oKta 4, ■n-cpio-croTepojs 4, o-T7/kco6, crm'ep- 
yos 7). 

(7) Col. 27 (•16). 

B I. 2. (ii) fVotKEw 3 ; (v) dveyKXT7Tos. 

B 2. o. 

C I. 14 (• 12) OpLa/x/Sevo}, vfji.vo<s, • {avaKaivoo), aTroKaTaXXdo-crw, avirjcris, 

a(j>ri, epe^i^w, lkovow, lcr6TT]<;, ocfiOaXfJioSovXia, pi^do/xat, crvvatxi-^a- 

AwTos 3, crw^<jD07rot€w, crvv6dTrT0fj.ai). 
C 2. II (•4) KaOevSw, veKpoii), 7ro(rts, wSt/, a-vv/Si/Sd^u) 3, i//^aX/xos 3) d.7roAi)- 

Tpa)(rts4, • {d)(cipoTrOLr)TO?, dcTTracr/xos 3, eVt 3, (rwepyos 7)- 

(8) I Thess. 23 (• 12). 
B I. o. 

B 2. I. (i) TrapaKXtjcn^ "J. 

C I. 8 (•6) dy two-i'VTj 3 , ckSikos, • (e7rt/?ap€w 3, £i;o-x>7/j<-ov(os 3, ddXirw, 
(TTeyw, vTrepeKTrepLacrov, (jl>iXoTip.i.op.aL 3). 

C 2. 14 (• 6) 0(i)pai, fJieOvii), TT/Do^acris, cr/3evvvfJ.L, dvTaTToStSw^t 3, evKOTrro) 3, 
<j>Odv(s> 4, (pLXrjfJia 4, • (jxeOvcTKOixaL, TrpoeLirov, TrcptTrotr/crts 3, Treptcr- 
(TOTepcos 4, (TTrjKUi 6, (n;vepyds 7)' 

(9) 2 Thess. 13 (• 7)- 
B I. o. 

B 2, I. (i) 7rapdKXr]aL<; 7 

C I. 4 (• 2) (jvvavafxtyvv jxai, vTrepaipofxaL, • yiTTifSapew 3, crTeXAop-ai). 
C 2. 8 (• 5) dvaXt'cTKw, €V€;)(a), dvTaTroSt'Sw/xt, • (do-7racr/x.ds 3, iKSiKr]cn<; 3, 
TreptTTOtT^crts 3, ciSoKta 4, o^tt^kw 6). 

(10) Philem. 7 (• 3). 
B I. o. 

B 2. I. (i) 7rapd/cA?j(Tts 7• 
C I. 3 (• 2) rd^a, • ((Twat^/xdAwTos 3, crvvaTpaTLwry]^). 
C 2. 3 (• l) ivepyrj<s, Kotvwvta 6, • (o-i;v€pyds 7)- 

G. 

Compotmds zuith a-privative. 

(l) Rom. 481 B I. 4. dSfdAeiTTTOS, dcTTopyos, drifxta, d(f)Oap<TLa. 

a. p. p. 1*8 j B 2. 17. dyi'oew, d6paT0<;, aTrtcTTta, dtreyST^S, dcrpcVcia, 

d^6apT0<;, — dSi/citt, dTrtcTTew, da^evcw, dXr]6rj<;, 
dvofxia, dvvTroKpLTOSfdvorjTOS, dSoKt/ios, aTrci^*;?, 
dcre'ySeta, dAv^^eta. 



156 



APPENDIX 1 



C I. 12. 



(2) I Cor. 47 
a. p. p. 2 



C 2. 15. 



B I. 

B 2. 



4- 
II. 



C I. 15. 



C 2. 17, 



(3) 


2 Cor. 




21' 


IB I. 


I. 


a 


p.p. I 


•6 




iB2. 
C I. 

C 2. 


10. 

7- 
9. 



(4) Gal. 12 


B 2. 


5- 


a. p. p. 1-5 


C I. 


r. 


C 2. 


6. 


(5) Eph. 17) B I. 


I. 


a. p. p. 1-9 j B 2. 


3- 


C I. 


4- 


C2. 


9- 


(6) Phil. ii]B2. 


3 


a. p. p. 1-8 j C I. 


2. 




C 2. 


6 



dAaXy^Tos, d/xeravoT^TOS, dvaTroXoyTyros, dveXc?//x(ov, 
dvc^epauvT^TOS, dvdyu.oJS, acrOevrjixa, dcri'v^cTO?, 
d)(pe6oixaL, — dStaXeiTTTws, d/xera/xeAT^TOS, dve^- 

d(3vcr(T0<;, dtStos, aKaKOS, da-)(y]fio(Tvvr], dSuvaros, 
drt/xd^w, dcrweros, d7ret(9€co, — aKcpatos, — aoi- 
Kos, aKaOapaca, aTreiOeLa, da-eXyeia, daO€vy]<;, 
df^poiv. 
dOavaaia, drifJiia, dcftOapaia, dviyKXy]TO<;, 
dyvoew, d^erew, di'O/xos, daOivcLa, d<f)$apTO<;, dot- 
Kta, dcr^eveo), d/capvros, aTricrros, dod/<i/xos, dXry- 

dyap.o'i, dycviys, dSoiTrai/os, dST^Xws, dKaraKdXvTTTO?, 

aKwv, dfieTaKLvrjTO?, dm^tos, dva^tws, dTrept- 

fTTrdcTTWs, dcTTaTeto, dcrp^iy/xoveo), dcr^rjfxovwv, 

dTOfxo<;, dij/v)(o<;- 
dyvwcna, dSr^Xos, a^v/xos, dKpaaia, d/xept/xvos, 

dppo)(TTO<;, dTLfxo<;, — d/caracrTacrta, dTrpdcTKOTros, 

dfjio/Scos, — dSt/ceo), aSt/cos, aKaOapcTLa, aKaOap- 

To?, dcrOevrj'S, d(f)pow, d<f)(Dvo<;. 
art/xta. 
dyi/oeoj, da-Oeveia, dScKia, dadevew, dXyjOrj's, dvo/xta, 

dvvTrd/cptTos, otTrtcrTos, dSoKt/xos, dXT^^eta. 
d/Sapys, dypVTTVLa, dfji.eTpo<s, dvcKSiT^yj^TOS, dTrapa- 

CTKeuacTTOS, dpp7]T0<;, — dfX€TafjL€Xr]TO<;. 
a(f)po(Tvvr], — dKaracTTacrta, dTropew, d^cLpoTTOLrj- 

Tos, — dStKccj, aKaOapTos, dcriXyeia, dcr^evi/s, 

ac^pwv. 
dyvoeo), dOerew, dcrOeveia, dvorjros, dXry^eta. 
dX^y^eijw. 
dKijpoa), — dTTope'w, — dStKcco, dKaOapata, dcreXyeia, 

do"^£VT/<;. 
d(fi6apaLa. 

aKapTTOs, dcrwTta, dXi^^eta. 
dueos, d(T0(f)0'5, — dATy^euto, dve^t^^rtaoro?. 
ayvota, dypuTri'eco, — dKp/./3(ijs, — dKaOapaia, aKa- 

OapTos, dfJLdJfJios, d-TretOeia, dcreXyeia, d^pcuv. 
dcrOevio), dX-qOrjs, dXrjOiLa, 
aKatpeo/xat, dXvTro?. 
d(r(fiaXr]?, — dKepatos, dTrpdcr/coTro?, d(}i6/3(t)';, — 

d/xe/ATTTOs, d/xw/xos. 



APPENDIX I 



157 



(7) Col. 10 ] B I. 

a p. p. 1-7 J B 2. 

C r. 

C 2. 

(8)1 Thess. 12 ] B 2. 

a. p. p. 2-2 j C I. 

C2. 

(9) 2 Thess. 7 ] B 2. 
a. p. p. 2-3 j C I. 

C 2. 

(10) Philem. 2 ] C i. 
a. p. p. 1-6 j C 2. 

(11) I Tim. 26 ] A I. 

a. p. p. 4-1 

A 2. 

B I. 

B 2. 



I. 

2. 
2. 
5. 

2. 

3- 

7- 

4' 
2. 
I. 
I. 
I. 



2. 
12. 



(12) 2 Tim. 24 A I. 


10 


a.p.p. 5-1 




A 2. 


2. 


B I. 


4 


B 2. 


8 


(13) Titus. 18 1 A I. 


4 


a.p.p. 6-75 j A 2. 


3 


B I. 


I 


B 2. 


10 



dvc'yKXT^TOS. 

doparo'S, dXyjOeia. 

dOv/iieci), d<f>€iOia, 

dx(ipo7roLr}TO<s, — uStKew, dKaOapcrca, d/xoifio?, 

dirciOua, 
dyvoew, d^eTcco. , 
dfxefnrTws, araKTOS, — dSiaXetTTTCos. 
dXT^^ti'd?, uXrjOws, d(T(f)dX€ia, — dKpL^u)?, — d/ca- 

6ap(TLa, dj.u[j.TrTO<;, dcr^£V7/s. 
dvo^o?, dSiKia, dvofJLM, d\Ti]$eia. 
draKTeo), drd/cTtos. 

dT07r09. 

dxpi7crT09. 
dSiKe'w. 

dST/AoTi^S, dvcTTtXrjfjbTTTOS, aTTepavTOS, d7rpd(nT09, — 

di/dcrto?, do-To;(e(o, — d/>ia;^os. 
d/AcXe'w, dcrTTiAo?, d<f>LXdpyvpo<;, — dvvTroTaKTOS, 

dpyds. 
d6ava(7La, dvey/cXr/To^. 
dyvoeoj, d$£T€(t), dvo/xo^, ddparos, dTrtorTta, dcre/??/?, 

daOiviia, d</)^apTos, — dvi^TroKptros, dvdr^ros, 

dTricrTOS, dXT/^eta. 
dKULpw?, dKpaTTjs, dve^iKaKos, dv€7rai(ri(i;vT09, dvi^- 

p.epo'i, aTratSeiJTOS, dcTTrovSos, d<^tXdya^o?, dvd- 

(Tios, d(rTo;)(£(o. 
dvoia, d^apto-TOS. 

dStdXctTTTOS, dcTTopyo';, drip-ia, d<f>6apaLa. 
dSiKia, diTiaTiU), dcrOevew, dvvTroKpiTOS, — dSoKi/xo?, 

uTTct^T^S, dcre'^eta, dXi^^€ta. 
d/cardyi/wo-Tos, dtfidopM, d{j/€v8-^<;, afxa^os- 
dvu)(f>eXT]?, — dvvTTOTaKTO'S, dpyds. 
dveyKXryros. 
aKapTTOS, dXr]6rj<;, dvofxia, dcroiTta, — dvdi^TOS, otTrt- 

(TTOS, — dSoKt/xo?, dTrei6rj<;, dcrifSua, dXtjOeia. 



Total Paul 105, a.p.p. i. Pastorals 54, a.p.p. 4. 



■StlMl Ij ^ 



■raij, z 






•UIIT I O '^ 

«|n CO 
SpiOlS-BJ CO ^ 



O 00 



so ^^ 









ro O 






ON n^ ^ Tt- ^^ Th 
!N 6 "-I Tt- CO !>. 



n 00 
in t-t 



CO CO 



ro 



ro 



HI oi 

O (M 






re 'P 
•Tico 



CO 

CO o\ 



rO ro 



O r^ rOO 

H- (-1 re r< 



ro 



ro 



ro 



•raaiiqj ;:; r:: 



„ CC CO , 






■ssaqx :; 
•ssaqx I 

•qda 






o 



o 



coir!- 

CO 



rO 



ro 

ro 

ON 

o 



ro 

ro 



ro 



o 



ro o •:- ^ 

^ « CO c^ i^ 



\0 .^ 'O ro _ 

^- Tt-^:, ro« 



1/1 
U5 






CO i-- ifj r^l 
'"ON U-. ON 

t^ r< 

ro^ ^O 
ON O 00 ON 






o 



o 



ro 

6 



CO 



CO 



•X5 



CJN \" 
O CO 



r. rP 
n O 
11 n 





•1^1) 




•J03 r 


< 




^ 


•JO 3 I 


O 




< 


•rao^ 



o 

H 

W 
fc4 



00 












CI 

P4 



a 

3 



ro 
O 



ro 
ON 

ro 
ON 

ON 



s 

S 

CI- 

o 






o 
O 
> 



O 



ON 



oo 

o\ 



ro 
O 



<u 






5^5 



ID 
O 

c 

rt 

lU 
B 
O 



•S .s 

— 1) 

pC • 

<u '^ 

13 ^ 

o c 

Iz;- 



ON 
CO 












fcXI 

C4 



o 

-4-t 

'3 



CO O 00 ON 



ON„ i^O 



o 
o 







U5 ^ 
< ^ 



O 



T7 



U 



tt 




^^y 


I-- 


^H 


< 


< 


ro 

CO 






^ 


Ci 


CJ 


o 


^—y 


o. 


pq 




u 


(U 






P3 


c^ 


ro 


ro 


lO 


■^ 


N 


cs 


N 


CO 






<:25 



M 



•smtx 








CO 12 

I-H 










o 




On 

HI 


l'-» 










o 


1^ 

CO 




^ 
■^ 


NO 






ro ro 


















i« 


f 




NO 


O 




^=^ 






ON 






CO 






ro '\? 


•^u. ^ 














rr. 


iV. 




O) 


»o 




CO 


^ 




in 

o 


CO 




VO 


CO 






■^ On 


















O 


ON 




CO 


'^ 




CO 


nO 






o 






in 








•«JiX I 
















ir. 


t^ 




o 


Th 




HH 


CO 




VO 
CO 


CO 




ON 


■^ 






O f' 

« ON 


siBio;sBj 








3;^ 








re 

ON 






NO 


in 




N 






NO 


CO 




VO 
m 


-^ 






VO CO 

2t^ 


•uiaiiqj 




\£ 


oo 


c^ 








rO 






fC 






<Xi 






t->. 


NO 

in 




NO 


CO 






in '^ 


•Fsaqx ^ 




IC~. 


IC 










>r. 


x>. 




in 


X^ 




ON 


CO 




r>. 


»n 




in 


in 






ro ^ 


•ssaqx I 




u~. 


CN 










O 


30 




VO 


HH 




00 
C4 


in 






■<t- 












CO "^ 
« CO 


'PD 






U3 


o ^ 








ro 


CI 




00 


CO 

l-t 




ro 






VO 


CO 




in 

cq 


4- 






r^oo 


•IRJ 






ON 


" "^ 








ON 


CO 




^ 


CO 




rfl 


CO 






r^ 




NO 
CO 


o 






VO "^ 

^ 4- 


•qd^ 




02 




r>.9 












o 


t-l 




VO 


t^ 




C^ 

in 


ON 

ih 




^ 


CO 
ih 






VO ^ 

ro -<*- 






On 


00 


N fi 








lA 


CO 




^ 


ro 




ON 


rl 




r- 

^ 


t>. 




n 


CO 






O 00 


•FO 




00 


6 










h-i 


- 




^ 


•- 




ITi t-^ 




»h 




m 


v6 






-^-^ 


•J03 r 






ON 

6\ 








\ 








o 


r4 




CO 


ON 




inco 

<^ih 




O 


ro 

VO 






00 *: 

VO ■^ 


•J03 I 




00 

00 


« 


^- 








U5 


ro 

IN 








ON 


00 




VO 
in 


NO 




00 

m 


nO 
VO 






x^ On 


•uio^ 


1 


CO 

ry. 

)-< 
O 


1^ 


CO CO 




1 

c 


0; 


o 


ON 




NO 


*^ 


a 

3 

h3 


ON 

HI 




-4-) 

X3 


1^ 


NO 

ih 


■4-J 


m 

VO 


ro 
VO 


1 

!3 


.s 


in 

1-4 




es 








d 








^ 








c/: 




»^ 






^ 






_a 








tfi 


Ph 








^ 


3 


:/5 




,H 






a; 


■& 


















■>J 








1) 






« 


« 


J 


yi 










_o 




_c 






_c 






3 






1 








s 




H 


"tn 

"o 




H 






3 
rt 


a, 




rt 

Ph 






"3 

Ph 






3 

rt 


t/3 






a. 


■4-J 

o 
c 




1 


1 


2 


a, 
< 




^i 








5 
















Ph 

C 


rt 


















•5 


5 






ir. 










u 






-4-' 






■*-» 
4) 


o 






U.2 

1- 


Oh 

rt" 


-4-1 ^ 

s 
o 
ex 


t 

c 

C3 
rt 


.2 c 


a 


5 

O 

'o 

eft 

o 


d, 


ja 

o 

in 


i~4 

aj 
ja 

rt 
JJ 

■q 

o 


• 

a, 

d, 

rt" 


1j 


rt 

_o 
"o 
o 

< 


d, 

d. 

c5 


2i 

4; 


rt 

1 

Ifl 

o 


d, 
d, 

cj 




■*-* 

in 

"So 
_o 

"o 

< 


d. 

• 

rt' 


-4-> 

c 

Li 

y] 

1) 


D. 
< 


d. 

.S rt- 

I' 
O 




s 


^ 




s 


^ 


'3 S 

rt a 




Cl. 






(-, ^ 






<u 






OJ 






<u 








CL 




3 


"o 




o 


£3 
V2 


o 


< 




■4-» 

o 


< 




o 


■4^ 




o 


ja 




o 


4-) 




O 


.s<: 








cu 


^ 






iz; 






:z; 






iz; 






^ 






12; 














ic 






< 


X 

* 

+ 




< 


* 

+ 




< 


X 

* 

+ 




<; 


* 

+ 




<1 


X 

* 




< * 










«o 


















































«o 












































rr. 




d, 






M 


X 




M 


* 




u 


X 




CJ 


-x- 




CJ 


X 




U 


K- 




n. 








U 


+ 




U 


+ 




m 


+ 




M 


+ 




;:q 


» 




P3 












O 












































ir 






•* 


N 


ro 


o\ 






ON 






_^ 






^ 






■q 






N 






n- 






■* 


VO 


VO 


VO 




VO 




^^ 




t^ 




1--. 






r>. 




> 






(-H 


HH 




<: 




m 




< 




M 




U 






Q 










> 


> 


t— * 


X! 








X 




X 




X 






X 







^j 






o 




u-l 


r^ 




N 








fO 


ON 


O ro 




L^^ 




t^ 




rt 






vrj 




»— 1 


r^ 


'^ 






t^ 




NO ON 


m 


r^ 




o 
H 










■* 




"^ 






vri 




ON 


NO 






























HH 


N 






o 








CO 


ON 


t-^ 














t^ 






1— t 








""* 


C) 


"* 














'^ 






OS 








ON 

t-H 


k-4 


o 










■sf « 


ir> 


CO 






00 










vO 












VO ^ 


O 


(O 






c^ 








■* 

r) 


VO 


O 










O NO 


NO 


NO 




w 
































05 
































S 


«o 








vO 


^ 


o 










On •<^ 


f^-l 


ro 


>^ 


U 










M 




ro 










1-1 


M 


"^ 


u 






























< 


o 


in 




ro 




•* 


N 


On 










M VO 


t^ 


VO 


*— * 

erf 










Tj- 




■* 










n- 


■* 


ON 


J 


o 






























o 


^ 


■># 




H-< 




ON 


LTl 


Wl 






t^ >- 


w M 


l-H 


VO 


PQ 


ffi 










CO 




'^ 










NO « 


CO 




< 
































U 


M 


00 




VO 




CTn 


N 


t^ 






N-4 




O M 


ro 


o 


o 


S 










\o 




r^ 






N 






HH 




> 
























 








m 


^ 


(M 




O 




l-H 


u-1 


NO 






<v-l w 


U~i n 


o 


NO 






l-H 




t^ 




OO 






00 




O ri 


W4 


ON 


lA 


2; 
























M 


ro 


m 


D 


HH 






























< 




1—1 




O 




\o 


rv 


ro 






N l^ 


^ r^ 


O 


en 






ro 




CO 




C) 






NO 




ON Cl 


On 


t— 1 


^ 














)— ( 






'^^ 




^ 


ON 


l-H 




2 




























hH 


U^ 


ol 




























1 


O 


w 












• 


• 












• 


1 

• 1 




El. 








« 




• 


























O 


o 




































1 


*— i 


P3 












^ 


























H 


§ 












CO 


























< 


3 
^ 












3 
O 


























u 












u 


s 
















cJ 








i 


1— 1 


a 


CO 








cy 


o 

V-I 








.. 








=y 6 








1 


>— 1 

CO 

< 


H 

o 

O 


H 


-§ 




o 

O) 
CO 


_4J 


oT 
c 
.2 

'c/3 














1 

tn 


jectives, 
iitions, & 








U 


t— 1 

Q 


O 




.£ 


O 
O 




O 

a 


"rt 










O 

o 




15 


73 




O 


Pi 


« 
f^ 

^ 
^ 






> 


in 


4-» 

o 






0- 


H 


s, verbs 
cles, pri 


O 


o 






^ 


.Si 


U2 
"3 




c 

3 


't, 




^ 

8 


05 

1j 


3 b 


(U 

x: 














5j 


4-* 

o 


o 


O 
S 








o 


g s 




o a 

c ex 














:? 


1—. 


C 


csi 






^ 


B o: 


c 

l-H 


c csi 












N4 












>4 




















« 


HH 


N 








^ 
^ 


KH 




N 














«. 


l-H 


ra 








U 




u 














►^ 












-^ 




















« 














• 





















APPENDIX I i6i 



THE RESIDUE 



82 Words found in the Pastorals, but not elsewhere in the N. T., 
nor in Goodspeed's Indices {Patristicus et Apologeticiis). 

dSyXoTTi^ i. Plut. y; Caes. 7 ; Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo (aSi^Aos i Clem. 

xviii. 6 ; Ath. 5. 2 ; Ptolemaeus ii. 33). 
at/DertKos iii. Aelian, JV. A. vi. 59; Schol. in Lucian 216. 19^' 

(TT/DoatpertKos Cleomedes i. 6. 29). 
al(TXpoKep8Ti]<; V. Plut. (Passow's Worierbuch), Hdt., Xen., Plat. ; Test. XII 

Pair, Jud. xvi. i 
o-Kaipoys ii. Epict. Diss. ii. 7. i, iii. 22. 50 &c.; M. Aur. Com. iv. 19; 

Galen, De Tevip. 97. 29. 
aKaTayvwoTTOS iii. 2 MacC. iv. 47 (d/caTaXr^TTTOs I Clem., Ath., -o-KemcTTOS 

Jus.). 
a/xaxo's V. Aelian, 2V.A. ix. 41. 49 and I>assim ; Lucian, Praec. i, 

Vit. Aucf. 22. 
di'SpaTToStcTTT^s i. Lucian, Dear. D. iv. 1. 209, Mar. D. vi. 3. 304 ; Polyb. 

xii. 9. 2 ; Dio Chrys. Or. Ixix (ed. Dindoff, vol. ii, p. 238, 1. 3). 
dvcTTatcrxwTos ii. Joseph. A7it. xviii. 7. i. 
dvTtStart^e/xai ii. Longinus, de Sublim. 17. i (avriTiOefxai Jus. Al>. 30. i, 

SiaTt^€/xat Jus. Z?. 22. 7, avTiStard^o/Aat Epict. iii. 24. 24). 
dvTt^€o-ts i. Galen, Z>^ Temp. (ed. Helmreich, p. 4, 1. 10); Lucian i. 

Mort. Dial. x. 374; Plato, Aristotle. 
dvTiXvTpov i. Polyaenus, Excerpt. 52. 7, (9;7>/^. Z///z. 587 ; Uncert. transl. 

of Ps. xlviii (xlix). 9. 
d.Tr6l3\r]To<; i. Dio Chrys. i, p. 169; Galen i, p. 10; Lucian, De Merc. 

Cond. c. 27, Toxar. 37, Philops. 29. 
diroOrjcravpL^ix) i. Aelian, JV.A. iii. 10; Lucian, Alex. 23; Epict. Diss. 

iii. 22. 50 ; Joseph. B. I. vii. 5. 2 &c. 
dprtos ii. Epict. i. 28. 3 ; M. Aurel. Com. i. 16. 
acTTTovSos ii. Galen, D. U. P. ii. 195. 15; Polyaenus, Strat. viii. 35, 

65 ; Philo, De Sacrif. 4. 
avOevrio} i. [jP. 7^3/. ii. 276. 28, late second or third century A. D.] 

{av6evTr]<; Hermes, Sim. ix. 5. 6, au^€VTi*cos 2 Clem. xiv. 3). 
avTOKaraKpiTOS iii. Philo ii. 652 (arTCTratVcTOS I Clem., /caTttKptTOS Ign.). 
dcfiOopLa iii. {d<f>Oopo^ Justin, Diod. — d8Ld<p0opo<; Galen, D. U. P. i. 

494. 14; Plut. Mor. v, p. 115 (820 a). 
dcf)iXdya6o<; ii. (^tAdya^os Plut. Mor. 140 C. — d^iXoKaXos Plut., dTretpd- 

ya^os Diod. t&C.) 

239S Itl 



i62 APPENDIX I 

/3a6fji.6s i. Hadrian. Imp. i^Sententiae — cf. Estienne, Thes. Gr. Litig. 

xii. 2. 490 f.), Lucian, Appian &c. ; Joseph. B.I. iv. 3. 10. (171). 
ydyypaiva ii. Galen, De Ttijnor 8, Com. 4 ct? to it. "ApOpwv, vol. xii, 

p. 437; Plut. Discr. cm. et adul. 36, 2. 65 D. 
yevcaAoyta V. Joseph, c Ap. 1. 3, ^«/. lud. xi. 3, 10; Polyb. ix. 2. i 
yeveaA. k. /xv^ovs. LXX, Philo i. 525 (yevtaAoyeco Aristeides, Lucian, 
Phal. ii. 9). 
ypatLSys i. Cleomedes, Z>f MCCC ii. 1. 89 (162. 14) ; Galen v. 120 b ; 

Strabo i. 16. 
yvp-vaata. i. Epict. i. 7. 12, 8. 7 &c. ; Arrian, Tact, xxxii. 2, xxxiii. 3; 

Galen, D. U. P. passim. 
yvvaiKapiov ii. M. Aurel. Com. v. 11; Epict. Diss. ii. 18. 18, 

22. 23 &c. 
SiaTrapaTpi/3y 1. {TrapaTpLJSrj Ath. 18. 3, hiaTpijBri Dio Chry. iv. 81. 23, 
Jus., Lucian, Hipp. 5 &c. ; M. Aur. i. 4 «&c. — aTroStaTpiySctv Schol. 
in Lucian 98. 23.) 
SiSaKTtKo's iv. Philo, Praem. et poen. 4, Z>^ Congr. Enid. 7. 
eSpaLMfia i. (eSpaios Ign., eSpa^w I Clem., Ign., Jus., Ath. — eSpat6Trj<; 

Dio Chrys.) 
ckSt^Aos ii. Dio Chrys. iv. 79. 17, vii. 141. 13 (272 r) ; 2 Mace. 

iii. 19, vi. 5. 
cK^T/rr^o-ts i. (eK^T/rew I Clem. &c. — ^rjTTjm? Justin, Melito.) 
cAey/xos ii. LXX. Sir. xxi. 6 ; 2 Kings xix. 3 &c. 

€7ravop^a)(Tis ii. Epict. Diss. iii. 21. 15 &c., Enc/i. xxxiii. 10 ; Ptolemaeus, 
Synt, Math. xiii. fin.; Galen, De Temp. 26. 12; Philo, De Inebr. 
22 &c. 
e-n-apK^oi i. Dio Chrys. vii, p. 122. 1. 29 (243 r), 124. 1. 13 (244 r) ; 

Epict. iii. 26. 8 &c. ; Horn., Xen. 
eTTiSiop^ow iii. (8top^do/Aat i Clem.) 
cTTto-To/Ai^w iii. Lucian, Diotiys. 7 ; Plut., Plato. 
eu/AcraSoTos i. M. Aur. i. 14, iii. 14, vi. 48. 
^ed7rv£i;(rTos ii. Plut. De Plac. Phil. v. 2. 3 (904 f.), Orac. Sib. 

5. 406. 
UpoirpeTTT^s iii. Lucian, De Sacr. 13; Joseph.; 4 Mace. ix. 25, xi. 20; 

Plato, Philo. 
KaAoSiSao-KaAos iii. (/caKoSiSacrKaAeo) 2 Clem. X. 5, -ta Ign. Eph. 

vi. 2 &c.) 
KaracTToAT; i. Epict. Z>m. ii. 10. 15, 21. ii; Plut. Pericl. 5; Joseph. 

B. I. ii. 8. 4. 
KaTaa-rprjvLdoi i. Ign. ad Antioch. c. 11. 



I 



APPENDIX I 163 

Kava-Tripux^o/jLai i. Schol. in Lucian 137. 11; Strabo v. 1. 9 (p. 215) 

[B. G. V. 952. 4, ii/A. D.] 
K€vo4>wLa iv. Dioscorides, I?e Mat. Med. praef. 2 (KevoSo^ta i Clem., 

Ign., Herm. — 6ixo(f)U)viai i Clem.). 
KVTQ$<i> ii. Moeris, Zex. Ait. p. 215; Aristotle, H.A. ix. i (609 a) 

{icvrja-Oai Galen, D. C/.I*. i. 11. i^ &c.). 
KoircoviKos i. Epict. Diss. iii. 13. 5 and />assim ; Lucian, Tim, 56; M. 

Aurel. Com. iii. 4. 2 &c. ; Galen i. 12. 28; Polyb. ii. 44. i; 

Plat., Aristot. 
Aoyo/taxeo) ii. (AoyoTrotew Ath. Siippl. 2. I, 31. I, 32. i ; Lucian, 

Cont. 12. 506.) 
Aoyo/xaxta i. (AoyoTroaa Ath. SuppL 3. I.) 
/xa/x/Ar; ii. Epict. ii. 16. 28, 43 &c. ; Plut., Appian, Joseph.; 4 Mace. 

xvi. 9 ; Philo. 
ftaratoXdyos iii. (ixaraiokoyia Plut. -M^r. 6 f. ; Polycarp, T'^p. ii. i. — 

fiaratoTTovia I Clem., Galen, D. U. P. i. 56. 25.) 
fx.cf^/3pdva ii. Cf. Horace, Serm. ii. 3. i f. ' Sic raro scribis, ut toto non 

quater anno | membranam poscas', and Gai. Inst. ii. 77 'quod 

in chartulis sive membranis meis aliquis scripserit, meum est '. 
fjLYjTpaXior]'; i. Lucian, Deor. Cone. 12 ; Aesch., Plat. 
veo^uTos i. (v€oya/tot Arrian, Hist. i. 24. 2 ; Lucian, Mort. D. xix. 

1. 410. ve6vvix<po<s Lucian, Asi'n. 34. 603 and numerous compds. of 

veo- in Lucian.) 
vyj4>akLo<i V. Appian, De Reb. Mace. ix. 9 ; Joseph. Ant. iii. 12. 2 ; Plut. 

Mor. 132 E. 
voijllk6<s (adj.) iii. As subs. cf. Matt. xxii. 35, Luke x. 25, vii. 30. 
vo{x.L/xa)<; iv. Galen, ad Hipp. ApJior. 18 ; Athen. i, p. 20 e ; Dio Chrys. De 

Ex. Or. xiii, p. 246, 1. 18 (427 r); Plut. Galb. 15 ; Thuc, Xen., Plat. 
^cvoSoxew i. Moeris, Lex. Att. p. 248 ; (^evoSdxos Plut. V. Alex. 5 1 ; 

$evoKTOV€<j} Ta.). 
oiKoSeo-TTOTeo) i. Lucian, De Astrol. 20; Plut. De Plae. Phil. v. 18, 

p. 1672 [908 b] (otKoSeo-TTOTT/s Epict. Diss. ii. 20. 20, iii. 22. 4). 
otKov/3(y)d9 iii. Plut. Mor. 953 b {o'lKovpyita I Clem., i. 3, oiKovpew 

Galen, De Temp. ii. 606, De Vic. Att. 61. 20; Aelian, N.A. i. 22. 
6p$oToiJi€w ii. LXX. Prov. xi. 5 (Kaij/oTo/tew Ta. 35. 2 ; Lucian, P/iai. ii. 9, 

op^oyvw/Aovcs Justin). 
7rapoij/os V. Lucian, 7}'ot. 55; Plut. De Log. 504 B, Symp. 8 (716 f) 

(■Tra/Doivia, Dio Chrys. xxxii. 421. 22). 
TrarpaAwr/s i. M. Aur. Com. vi. 34. 
TreptTTcipw i. Plut. Galb. 27 ; Lucian, Joseph., Philo. 
TTtpt^povew iii. Plut. Per id. 31, J/br. 762 e; 4 Mace. vi. 9, vii. 16. 

M a 



i64 APPENDIX I 

TrXiyixa i. Joseph. Anf. ii. 9. 4 (TrXcy/xaTtoi/ M. Aur. I'i. 2). 

-7ropta-/i.os i. Joseph. B.I. ii. 21. 3; Plut. J/i?r. 524 d, Caf. Mai. 25; 

Polyb. iii. 122. 2. 
TrpoKpifjia i. {-rrpoKpLVM Jus. Z>. V. 5 ; Melito ; Euseb. ZT. -S. iv. 26. 13.) 
(rK€iraa[xa i. Joseph. ^. /. ii. 8. 5 ; Aristot. {a-Ktirapvov M. Aur. x. 38, 

o-KC7raorT?^pios Galen, £>. U.P. i. 22. 4 &c.) 
o-TOyu,axo? i. Dioscorides, De M. M. i. 17. 2 &c. ; Galen, D.U.P. 

iv. 15 &c. ; M. Aur. x. 31. 35 ; Test. XII Fair. Neph. ii. 8. 
a-TparoXoyidi ii. Plut., Joseph, (see Thayer, s. v.) ; Diod. Sic. ; 

Dion. Hal. 
(Tvi'KaKOTraOeoi ii. [a-vfiTraOeo) Jus. Z). XXXviii. 2, KaKOTraOio) 2 Clem. xix. 3.) 
orii)(jipovL(Tfx.6s ii. Appian, /'zij;^. viii. 65 ; Joseph. ^«/. xvii. 9. 2, B. I. 

i. 3 ; Plut. j^<?r. 712 c. 
TCKvoyovta i. AristOt. ZT. ^. vii. 1. 8 (rcwoyoi/ew Diogn. v. 6). 
T€KvoTpo<f>€<D i. Epict. i. 23. 3; Arlstot. (rcKi/oKiToveaj Ath. 20. 2, 35. 2). 
vBpoTTOTeo) i. Dioscorides, Z)^ J/. Jll. v. 7. i ; Lucian, ^w Ac^. 16 ; 

Macrob. 5 ; Aelian, Var. Hist. ii. 38 ; Xenophon. 
iiTTOTVTTwo-is iv. Galen (see Stephanus, TAes. s. v. ' etiam inter Galeni 

scripta, sed Latine tantum exstat e/t7reipiK^s dytoy?}? ^7roTi;7r(oo-ts). 
i\]/r]Xo(f>povi(i> i. {y\^y}Xo(jipo(rvvr], -cfipwv Herm., Ta7reLVO(f)poavv7], -ew I 

Clem., Herm.) 
<j>aiX6vri<; \\. ■=^ paenula. Epict. iv. 8. 24; M. Aur. i. 16 (cf. Varr. ap. 

Non. 537, 12; Juv. V. 79; 'LdixnT^r. Alex. Sev. 27). C. H, Dodd 

has drawn attention to two extremely interesting notes given in 

Grenfell and Hunt's Oxyrrhnychus Papyri, vol. xii. 1916, (i) 

1583. Second cent. a. d. . . . Vofov Trapa 'lo-tSwpov x"-P'-^ "^^^ 

(fiaivoXov Kol Tov iirLKapcTLov koi direveyKov Trapa K.aXvKr]v ... (2) 

1489. Third cent. a. D. t6 klOwlv ( = xtTwvtoj/) iTnXiXrjo-fJLai. Tapa 

TeKovaav ek tov iruXcoKa- Trifjuj/ov /xol . . . (Expositor, viii. 88. April 

1918). 
cf>LXdyaOo? iii. Plut. Mor. 140 c, Praec. Coiii. 17; LXX. Sap. vii. 22 ; 

Philo, Aristot. 
(fiiXavSpo<; iii. Polyaenus, Strat. viii. 32. 34; Plut. Praec. coni. 28; 

Lucian, Hale, 8, de Mer. 73. 
(f)Xvapo<; i. Plut. Symp. 7 (701 a), V. Cicer. 2, V. Anton. 29, Mor. 

39 A &c. ; 4 Mace. v. 10 {^Xvapifn Ta. xxxiii. i, -La Ta. xxvi. 

2 &c., d^A-uapos M. Aur. v. 5). 
<f>p€va7rdTr]<s iii. ((^pevaTraTaw Gal. vi. 3. — <f>pevrjprjs M. Aur. viii. 5 1.) 
il/€v8uivvfxo<; i. Aelian, iV. A. ix. 18; Plut. Alor. 479 e; Philo, 

Aeschyl. 



APPENDIX I 165 

Phrases in the Pastorals and in early second-century non- Christian 

Writers. 

(1) Ot yv\x.va(JT(XL kol ol ye vofiLfiw'S aOXovvTe<; Galen, ad Hippocr. Aphor. 

18; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 5. 

(2) 'Eav KoAos (rTpaTLU)Tr]<i yevrj, rpirw j3a0fxQ (promotion) Svvrjcrr] ets 

TTpaiTwpiov fjL€Ta^rjvai, Hadriani Sententiae (Estienne, Thes. Graec. 
Ling. vol. xii. 2. 490 f.); cf. 2 Tim. ii. 3 ws /caXos crTpaTiwTrj<;, 
I Tim. iii. 13 ot KaAws Sta/covi^cravres f^aOfiov earrots KaXov 
■jrepLTTOLOvvTai. 

(3) yvvaiKa's fir] o/AtXctv oiVw dXAa v8poTroTitv Aelian, Var. Hist. n. 38 ; 

cf. I Tim. V. 23 fjt.r]KeTt vBpoTTOTeL, dXXa otvo) oXt'yw ;^poJ 8ta tov 
o-To'/x.axoi' K. T. . . . d(r(9€vetas. Dioscorides , De Al. M. \. 1. \ h 8e 
KaAoi;/xei'os p.(XlTr]<i otvos StSorai /acv . . . TOi? daOevr} tov crTO/xa^ov 
^xovcTL . . . KOL . . . Tots do-Oevrj T, Kecf)aXr]v e^ovaL' •)(pr}(TifJiO<; h\ 
KoX yvvai^lv vBpoTroTOV(Tai<;. 

(4) £t fiev . . . ws fjivOov Tis ypaos dvaytvwcTKOt tov Aoyov Galen, Z). U. P. 

iii, 15; cf. I Tim. iv. 7. [xvOapM ypawSa Trto-revo-as Cleomedes, 
MCCC. ii. I (162. 14): cf. Philo Byblius (Fragm. Hist. Graec. 
viii, p. 564); M. Aurel. 8. 25. 

(5) aTTO^ou Twv prjfxdTuiv Tr]v ToaavTrjv aTrepavToXoyLav Kat avTiueaas ko-i. 

Trapia-bxreis . . . kol /3apftapi(Tfxov<s k. t. dXXa [id-prj t. Aoycov Lucian, 
Mort. Z>. X. 373 f. ; i Tim. i. 6, vi. 20. 

(6) £t nAdrwvo? . . . K. 'Apto-ToreAous iKXaQop.f.va KaOrjcraL, t. o/xolov 

TreTTOvOoJS Tots ra wra TTTepw /cvwyiteVots . . • Lucian, Khet. praec 
11. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 3. 

(7) ^yt^5 Ao'yos M. Aurel. viii. 30 ; Titus ii. 8. op^w Kat {lytet Kat 

dvcKiX-ryKTi^ piio xp(^p-^vo<; Lucian, Demon. 3 ; iv vyiaivova-rj ry ipvxfj 
Lucian, Longaev. 209; cf. Titus i. 13, i Tim. iii. 2 &c. 

(8) TrAavwvrai Kara rov )8tov ocrat ^^v^ax , . . SeSovXaifievai Se rjSovai^, 

^iAt^Sovoi, Kat (f)tXo(TU)ixaTOL, /3iov ai(r)(poy . . . ov)(^ eAoyu-cvat ^coo-iv, dAAa 
h/exOdaaL Trpos avTov Dio Chrys. iv, p. 85 (178 r) ; cf. Titus iii. 3 
irAavw/xevot, SovXevovres . • • rjSovoLS. 2 Tim. lil. 5 f« ^tA>;oovoi . . . 
dyofjieva iTriOvfiiaLS . . . 

(9) €K Trpoyoi'wv Phlegon Trallianus 31 ; cf. ot -rrpoyovoi aov ... 6 p.lv 

TraTTTros crou 'Aptavos . . . 6 8e TraTrjp (rov ... cru Se . . TrcTrctcryuc^a 
TrdvTa Trpda-a-eLv Melito (Eus. ^. -£. iv. 26) ; cf. 2 Tim. i. 5. 

(10) "AvOpoiTTOv ficv ctvat (ro(fiov k. StKatov k. twv otKctcov TratSwv Trpop-rjOe- 
(TTaTOV, K. Twv yctvap,eVu)i/ 7roteto-^at ttjv Trpocn^KovcTav <f>povTLoa, Aeliai\ 
iV. ^. proem. ; cf. i Tim. iii. 4 f., v. 8. 



i66 



APPENDIX II 
A. 

STEREOTYPED PHRASES IN THE PASTORALS 

TrapdyyeXXi ravra k. StSaaKc, I. IV. 1 1 J ravra StSaa-KC k. trapaKoXu, 
I. vi. 2. 

Kai Tavra TrapayyeXXe, I. V. 7 > ravra VTrofXLixvrja-Ke, II. il. 1 4. 

Tavra XdXci, Kat TrapaKoXeL /cai eXey^c, TltUS il. 15 J ravra ^evye 

I. vi. ir. 

Cf. TaCra v7roTt^e/xci/os &C., I. iv. 6; ravra ficXira, I. iv. 15 ; ravra 
TTapdBov, II. ii. 2. 

fxvOovs {ktX.) TrapaiTOv, I. iv. 7, V. Il, II, ii. 23, Titus iii. 10. 

K€vo(fi(jiVLa<s {fj.d)^a'5) Trepda-Tacro, II. ii. 16, TituS iii. 9. 

8t' ^v atTtW, II. i. 6, 12 ; Titus i. 13. 

ci TravTi e/3yw dya^ui iTrr)KoXov6r](Te, I. V. lO. 

CIS ttSv cpyov ay a$ov rjTOLfji.acrfjiivov, II. ii. 21. 

TT/Dos ttSv epyov ayaOov i$r]pTLcrixevo<;, II. iii. 17. 

Trpos ttSv epyov dyaOov dSoKt^ot, TitUS i. 16 ; (ctoi/aods), TitUS 
iii. I. 

tV T<5 vw atwvi, I. vi. 17; IL iv. 10; Titus ii. 12, Paul writes 
€1' T. ald)VL TovTw, Rom. xii. 2; I Cor. i. 20, ii. 6, 8, iii. 18; 2 Cor. 
iv. 4; Eph. i. 21. 

T^s (t^) iv Xpio-Tw 'Itjo-oO, I. i. 14, iii. 13; II. i. i. 9, 13, ii. i. 10, 
iii. 15. 

epya KaXct, I. iii. i, v. 10, 25, vi. 18 ; Titus ii. 7, 14, iii. 8, 14. 

(Kara) eis cTriyvtocrtv dXr}0€ia<s, I. U. 4; II. U. 25, lil. 7 5 TltUS 1. I. 

llxTTLTTTCLv CIS TTayiStt, I. iii. 7, VI. 9,* cf. II. ii. 26. 

^tJv cvo-cySws, IL iii. 12 ; Titus ii. 12; cf. I. ii. 2. 

TTcpi T'^v TTtcTTti/ cvavdyT^o-av, I. i. 19, (i^(rTd;(7/crav) vi. 21 ; (dSoKtyutoi) 

II. iii. 8. 

Trept ry]v dXrjdnav T](TT6-)(r)(Tav , II. ii. 1 8. 

(Paul uses Trept with accusative only once, Phil. ii. 23 to. ircpt cp.c.) 

Tov KaXov dywva dywvt^civ, II. IV. 7 5 I • VI. 12. 

av^ptoTTos Oeov, I. vi. II ; II. iii. 17. 

StaTraparptySat 8tc<^^app.evwv dvOpwTrwv T. vovv, I. VI 5* 

avOpwTTOL KaT€<f>6apfX€i'ot T. voCv, II. iii. 8. 

ficpiiavTai avTwv ... 6 vows, TitUS 1. 15. 

yu.tas yvvatKos dv^p, I. iii. 2, 12 ; Titus 1. 6 j cvos dvSpos yvv??, I. v. 9. 



APPENDIX II 167 

iv KaBapa (rvveiSyjcrei, I. iii. g ', II. i. 3. 

€/c KaOapa<: KapSta'i [k. crwctSi^creoas a.yaOrj<s), I. i. 5 J II. ii. 2 2. 

I^wv ayaOrjv (TVveLSrja-LV, I. i. 19 ; cf. I. iv. 2 ; TitUS i. 15. 

Tn(TTo<s 6 Ao'yos, I. i. 15, iii. r, iv. 9 ; II. ii. 11. 

Tov Kara ttjv StSa^rjv ttixttov Aoyov, TitUS i. g. 

Tr]<s KaXrj? Si8ao"/caAtas y TrapriKoXov6rjKa% I. iv. 6. 

7rapr)KoXov6r]<rd'S jjlov ttj StSacTKaAta, II. iii. 10. 

r] vyiaivovaa SiSacrKaXLa, I. i. 10 ; II. iv. 3 ; TitUS i. 9, ii. I. 

vyiau'ovT€<i Aoyoi, I. vi. 3; II. i. 13; TitUS ii. 8. 

vyiaLvuv rfj TriareL, Titus i. 13, ii. 2. 



B. 

PAULINE PHRASES IN THE PASTORALS 

The reference before a phrase applies to the Pastorals, that after a phrase 
applies to the Pauline epistle in question. 

i. Romans. 
I Tim. i. I Kar iTTiTayrjv 0€ov, xvi. 26. 

i. 5 TO Se TeXos . . ., vi. 22 ; cf. TrXi^poj/jia vo/aou r) ay dirrj^ xiii. 10. 

i. 8 otSa/xev Sk ort KaXbs 6 v6fio<s . . . : cf. oiSa/ACv 8e on oca 6 v6fjL0<s Aeyct 

Tois iv T. vojjuo Ae'yei, Ul. 1 9 ; <rvv(fi7]fjLL tw vofJLta on KaAos, vii. 16. 
i. 10 Kol ei n €T£pov', cf. /cat et ns h-epa ivroX-^, xiii. 9, 
i. 14 virepeTrXeoi/ao'e 8c 17 X'^P'' ''"''^ Kvpt'ou rjfxwv : cf. ou Sc CTrAeovacrev 

7/ dfxapria v-mptTrepicraeva^v rj xapis, V. 20 ; y X'^P'^ t. Kvpiov ■^jjlCjv 

Irjcrov, XVI. 20. 
i. 15 X. I. TJXdev CIS T. k6<t}jlov dfxapTO)Xov<; crwcrat ; cf. en d/xapTfaXwv 

ovTOiV X. uTTcp TjiJiwv aTTC^avc ... 1; dfuipTLa ets t. Koap-ov elcr^XOe, 

V. 8, 12. 
i. 16 TTto-Tcvciv eV ai'Tw, ix. 33, X. ri; cit. Isa. xxviii. 16; ct? ^tor]v 

alwvLov, V. 21. 
i. 17 TO) 8c .. . /Aovto 0e&) . . . 8o^a cts T. atwvas' dptjv, XVI. 25, 27. 
ii. I Trpwrov . . . TTOtcto-^ai cvxaptcrnas : cf. TrpwTOV ju.ei/ cuxaptoTw, 1. 8. 
ii. 7 dAT/^ciav Aeyo), ou if/evSo/xai, ix. I ; cyw . . . aTTOo-ToAos . . . iOvwv, xi. 13. 
iii. 7, vi. 9 eicnApAA, xi. 9; cit. Ps. Ixix. 23. 
iv. 13 TTJ TrapaKXr](T€i, rfj SiSaaKaXui : cf. xil. 8. 
v. 18 Aeyci yap 1^ ypa<fir], IX. I7i X. II. 
vi. 4 (fiOovos, cpis . . . ^L€<f>6appev(DV dvOpwirwv r. vovv k. d7r€<rT€py]p.ev(i}v 

T. dXrjOeias : cf. dv6puiiroyv tojv t. oAi/^ciav cv dSiKia KaTe)(ovTO)v , . . 

els d8oKtju.ov vovv . . . fxeoTov^ <ji66vov . . . epiSos, 1. 18, 28 f. 
vi. II 8tWc 8t/catoo-vv7^v : cf. ix. 30 {rd fir] Stw/covra Si/catocruvijv), xii. J^. 



i68 APPENDIX II 

2 Tim. i. I, 13, ii. i, 10, iii. 15 t^s (t^) iv Xpicrrw 'It^ctov, iii. 

24, viii. 39. 
i. 3 f. Xaptv €^(D T. 0CU) o) Xarpivw . . . ws dSiaXetTrrov c^^to t. Trcpi (tou 

/Aj/ciav cv rats Scv^crccri' )u,ou, iTrnroOwv ere iSuv tua : cf. X^P*-^ ^* ®^4'' 

vi. 17 J €V)(apiaTui T. ©€<5 ... (1) XaT/3ei;w, ws dStaXet'TTTcos fJivetav v{Ji(ov 

TTOiovfxai . . . cTTt Twv ■jrpo<Tev)(piV fJiov, Seofievos • • . lirnroOZ) yap iSetv 

vfjiS.^, iva . . ., 1. 8— II. 
i. 5 T^s iv croi . . . TTt'cTTCWs . . ., i. 12 J oTSa yap (S ireiricrTevKa'. cf. 17 

TTtaTLS v[Ji(x)V, i. 8 ^ . . . 8ia T^s ev dXAi^Aots Trtorcws v/jlwv tc Kat ifJi-ov, 

i. 12. 
i. 5 Tmrua-jxai Sc on Kat, XV. 14. 
i. 6 )(apL(rfxa, 1. 1 1, 
i. 6 TO ^dpLcr/Jia tov ®£0v, VI. 23. 
i. 7 oi yap e8o)K€v rjfuv 6 ©cos Trvevfxa SetXtas, dXXa Svvd/xews Kai : cf. 

ov yap iXd^ere 7rv€Vfx.a SouXct'as TrdXtv eis <^oy8ov, dXAd . . ., vlii. 15 ', 

iv SwdfJiei TTveu/xaro? dytou, XV. 13 J tScoxev airois 6 ©eos TrvcS/ta 

KaTavT^^ccDs, xi. 8 ; cit. Isa. xxix. 10. 
i. 8 jxr] cTrato'xi'v^Tjs to /xaprvpiov, . . . l. 12 ovk iTraLcr)(yvofiaL cf. 1. 16. 
i. 9 Tou KaX£0"avTos . . . ov Kara t. epya rjfiCiv : cf. ovk i^ epycav dXX ex 

T. KaXowTOS, IX. II ^ contrast aTroSwo'ei eKacrTO) KaTa to, epya 

avTov, 11. 6. 
i. 9 dXXa Kara iStav irpodeatv Kai X'^P'-^} '''W ^oOeiarav rjfuv iv X. I. Trpo 

XpovoiV aloyviwv, (ftavepuyOiLcrav 8e vvv Sid . . . : cf. Tois Kara irpoOeaiv 

KXrjTols, viii. 28 ; KaTa rrjv X'^P"' "^W SoOeicrav rjfuv, xii. 6 ; cv X. I. 

vi. II &C. ; x/3ovots aiwvtois aea ly rj/jLevov, cfyavepwOevros 8c vi)v 

8id . . ., xvi. 25. 
i. 10 ^(jdi)v /cat d(j>6apo-Lav : cf. 11. 7- 

i. 12 oiSa Kat TriTreL(Tp.ai otl SwaTos ccttiv, xiv. 14, xi. 23. 
i. 13 dydirrj rfj iv Xpto"Ta) Irjaov, VIU. 39. 

i. 14 8ta HvevfxaTos 'Ayiov tov ivotKovvTO'; iv rjfiiv, V. 5> viil. 11. 
ii. I iv T. xaptTt Trj iv X. I. : cf. V. 1 5, iii. 24. 
ii. 8 I. X. iyrjyepfiivov ck veKpwy : cf. iv. 24, VI. 4, 9. ck cnrepfJiaTO<; AayStS, 

i. 3 J KttTa TO ciayyeXtov fiov, ii. 16, Xvi. 25. 
11, 1 1 €1 yap cvvaTTiOdvo/xev, k. (rvv^rjcrofjiev, vi. 8. 
ii. 12 eivTTOfJiivofJiev, Kai crvv- . . .: cf. ctTrep (TV[j.Trd(rxp/J.ev iva k. cwSo^a- 

aOu)iJ.ev, viii. 17 : cf. i €or. iv. 8. 
ii. 13 €t dTTto-Tov/Acv ktX. I cf. iii. 3. 

ii. 15 aeavTov Sokl/jlov irapaa-Trja-ai t. ©e<3 : cf. VI. 13, xiv. iB. 
11. 20 aKEvrj a /xev £is TLfxrjv a Be cts a.Tifx.Lav, ix. 21. 
ii. 22 StcoKC StKatoo'WT;!' . . . flprjviqv '. cf. ix. 30, xiv. 19. 
11. 25 firjTTore Siorj avTols 6 ©cos fierdvoiav : cf. li. 4. 



APPENDIX II 169 

Ui. I TOVTO yiVUXTKC, OTl, VI. 6. 

ill. 2 dAa^ov€S, v7reprj<f>avoi, yovcvcrtv direiOeLS, aaropyoL, l. 30 f. 
Titus i. 2 rjv tTTT^yyetAaTO rrpo \p6v(av attovtW, i<f)avipo)(T€V 8c . . . Kar' 

CTTiray^v toC . . . ©eoS : cf. b TrpocTnyyyetXaTO, i. 2 J ;)^ovot? atwvtots . . . 

(^avepoj^eVros 8e . . . Kar' eTnrayrjv t. ©eoO, xvi. 26. 
i. 2 6 aij/evSrj^ ©cos : cf. iii. 3. 
i. 15 Travra KaOapa tois KaOapols : cf. Travra /xev Kadapa, XIV. 20 : 

cf. xiv. 14. 
ii. 5 Tva /at) 6 Xoyos r. ©eov /3\a(T(f>rjixrjTaL : cf. ii. 24 ; cit. Isa. Hi. 5 
. {ovofjia T. ©cov). Cf. I Tim. vi. i iva fxr] to ovo/xa t. ©eov . . . 

/3Aao-^7;yu,^Tat. 
ill. I l$ovaLaL<; vTrordaireaOai, xiii. I. 
ill, 4 17 •^TjdTOT'q'i ©eov, XI. 2 2, 
111. 7 St/caioj^evTcs t^ Ikuvov ^dpiri, iii. 24 : cf, V, I. 

ii. I Corinthians. 

1 Tim. i. 2 Tt/xo^€oj tckvo), iv, 17. 
i. 3 ev 'Ecf>iaio, xvi. 8. 

i. 12 eis StaKovtW, xvi. 15. 

I. 12 TTtoTov /ti.c TjyrjcraTO . , . rjXey'jdrjv : cf, rjXirjixivos vtto Kvpiou ttiotos 
ctvat, vii, 25, 

i. 20 oSs irapeSwKa tw ^arava Tva . . . : cf. KCKpiKa TrapaBovvai t. toiovtov 

T. Sarava tVa, V. 5. 
ii. 3 toi!to kuXov, vii. 26. 

II. 7 iT€$r]v iyo) aTroo-ToXos k. StSacrKaXos : cf, ovs p-^v cpcto 6 ©cos 
aTTOo-ToAovs . , . TpiTov StSacT/caAous, Xli. 28. 

11. 8 7rpo<T€v)(^ecr6ai t. aiSpas : cf. xi. 4. 

11. 9 6 TrpcTTCt ywai^iV ; cf, Trpiirov icm yvvaiKa aKaTaKaXvirTov t. 0cw 
7rpo(rev)^(cr6aL, XI. 13. 

11. 1 1 f . yvv?) p,av6av€T<o iv Trdcrr] virorayy, SiSdcrKeiv 8c yDvatKi ovk lirLTpi-Tna 
. , . dAA' civai cv yjcrv^Lo. : cf. ai ywaiKcs cv t. CKKAr^ciats crtyaTwcrav, oti 
yap cTriTpeVcTat avrais AaAeir, dAA' vTroTaaaeaOwcrav . . ,, xiv. 34 f- 

ii. 13 'ASap. yap wpuiTO'i ktX. : cf. xi. 8, XV. 2 2, 45. 

li. 15 (T(i)6rj(T£TaL 8c 8td, iii. 15 : cf. vii. 16. cav p-eivojcriv, vii. 8, 20, 40. 

iii. 6 tVa p,r) CIS Kp2fJia, xi. 34. 

V, 18 BoYN aAoconta oy <))iMc6ceic, ix 9: cit. Deut. xxv. 4. 

V. 19 c/CTOS ct p.rj, xiv. 5, XV. 2. 

vi. II TttiJTa cf)€vye: cf. vi. 18, x. 14. StWc dydinqv, xiv. I. 

VI. 14 Tiqprjuai ae t. ivroXi^v : cf. TT]prj(n<i ivToXwv, vii. 1 9. 

2 Tim. 1. 2 Tip-oOew dyaTTT/Tw tc/cvo) . . . avap.ip.vrj(TKM ere : cf. Tt/xo^cov, 

OS CQ-rt fiov t4kvov dyaTrrjrov . . . os v/aus dvaixvrjfTn, iv. 17. 



170 APPENDIX II 

I. lO KaTapyrj(TavTO<; tov Oavarov : cf. KarapyciTai 6 Odvaro^, XV. 26. 
ii. 4 f. iav 8e Kttt, vii. 28 (dpe'cny, vii. 33). 

II. 5 ov o-Tc^avoDrat eav /x,^ kt\. : cf. ix. 25. 

11. 6 TOV KOTTicuvTa yeuifyyov ktX. : cf. ix. 7, 10—14, iv. 12. 

11. 12 Kai crvv/3a(Tt\€v(ro/xev, iv. 8. 

11. 191.0 (TTepeos Oe/JieXLOs coti^kcv €;((jdv . . . (^(jKivr]) ^(pvcra. k. apyvpa k. 

^Aiva : cf. earrjKev . . . eSpatos firj e^^otv . . ., vii. 37 ; ctti t. 6^p.(.Xiov 

Xpyo'iov, dpyvpiov, ivXa, iii. 12. 

II. 2 2 jLieTO, T. iTTLKaXoVflivOiV T. KVpiOV \ Cf. 0-l)V TTttO-t T. cTriKaXor/Aevots T. 
ovo/xa T. K-VpLOV, i. 2. 

Titus i. 3 T. Xoyov avTov iv Krjpvy/JiaTi : cf. 6 A.oyos p-ov k. t. KTjpvypA pov, 
ii. 4. 
1. 5 0)5 eyco o-oi BuTaidp.rjv : cf. vii. 1 7, xi. 34. 

1. 7 WS ©tov OlKOVOp-OV : cf. (t)S olKOv6p.OVi p,V(TT7]pi(xiV ®€OVy Iv. I. 

1. 15 pLep-iavTUL auTwv 17 OT;i'€t8i^o-ts, viii. 7 (/xoXwerat). 

III. 3—7 r}p.€v TrXav <x)p.evoL . . . KXr]pov6p.OL . . , 8ta Xovrpov . . . StKaiw^evra? • . . 
Trvevp-aros '. cf. vi. 9 f . 

iii. 2 Corinthians. 

1 Tim. i. 3 £ts MttKcSovtav, i. 16, ii. 13, vii. 5. 

i. II TO ivayyiXiov t^s 8o^s to?) (©eoi)), iv. 4 (Xpto-Tou . . . ©eov). 

I. 12 6ep.i.vo<i €ts StaKOVt'av : cf. Oep.€vo? iv rjp2v t. Xoyor • . . Sovto? . . . t. 
SiaKOvtav, V. 1 8 f. 

i. 18 tva aTparevY] . . . t. kuXtjv (TTpaTciav : cf. arpaTiv6p.i.6a . . . t. oTrXa 
T. (TTpaT€Las, X. 3 f. 

II. 3 /caXov cvwTTtov T. @€ov : cf. KaXa . . ivuiTTLOv Kvptov, Vlil. 21. 

II. 1 3 f. Eua . . . ^ yvvr) iiaTrarrjOeLcra : cf. 6 o<^ts i^rjira.T'qde.v Evav, XI. 3 *, 
cit. Gen. iii. 13 {rj-n-dTrja-^v). 

iii. 15 cv oiKO) ©eoi; dvaarpecfyea-OaL ; cf. iv \a.pLTt. ®(.ov dv€.(TTpd^-qp.€v iv 
T. KO(rp.U>, 1. 12. 

III. 16 i<f)av€p<j)Or] iv (rapKi, iv. lO f. 

iv. 10 ■YjXTrUap.fv €771 ©e<o ^wj/ti : cf. ctti t. 0€w €is ov rjXTTLKapiev, i. 9 f. 
iv. 12 €v Aoyo) . . . £V dyaTrrj . . . iv dyvua. : cf. cv ctyvoTi^Ti . . , iv dydin] . . . 
iv Xoyo), VI. 6 f. 

IV. 13 T^ dvayvw<T€L, ill. 14. 

V. 14 pcrjSepLtav dcf)opp.r]V SiSovai tw avTiKCt/tevo) XotSopta? X'^P'*' * ^^* d(jiop- 
p.7]v SiSdvTcs, V. 12 j p-qhep-Lav StSdvTes TrpocTKOTrijv, Iva p.r] p.iop,rj6ri, VI. 3. 

V. 19 en! CTOMATOc Ayo MAprypcoN k. jpicJoN, xiii. I : cit. Deut. xix. 15. 

2 Tim. i. 15 oTSas toCto oti d-jreaTpdcfirja-dv p.€ TravTcs 01 iv rfj ' Ao-ia : cf. ov 

OiXopL(.v vp.d^ dyvouv TTiplr. ^Xtt/^ews -^/awv t-^s yevop.iv7)<i iv t. Acrux, 1. 8. 
ii. 10 S6$y]'S al(i)VLOV : cf. aiwvcov (Sdpo<i Soirjs, iv. 1 7. TravTa vwop.iv(j} Bta t. 



APPENDIX II 171 

ckXcktov?, tva K, avTol (rwTT//otas TV)(o}(nv : cf. (jrdvTa luTro/Aevct, I Cor. 

xiii. 7) £v virojxovrj iroWfj, VI. 4 ; eire 0Xi(36fie0a, vTrep t>}s v/xiov ctwttj- 

ptas, i. 6. 
ii. 1 1 ct crvva7rc$a.vofJi.€V k. crv^yaofjLev : cf. els to crvvaTroOavelv k. crv^rjv, 

vii. 3. 
ii. 20 (TKevrj oa-TpaKiva, iv. 7. 

Titus i. 3 f. Kar iiTLTay-qv . . . Tiro) yvq<JL(a : cf. TtVov . . . xar' eirtTay^v . . . 
TO T. vfxerepas aya-K-qs yvrjcrtov, VUl. 6, 8. 

iv. Galatians. 

1 Tim. i. 2 ev TTtcTTct, ii. 20. 

i. 7 ^e'AovTes elvat vo^o8t8a(rKaA.ot : cf. vtto vofxov BiXovTes ctvat, iv. 2 r. 

i. 13 TO irporepov ovra SiWKTrjv : cf. IV. 13, l. 13. 

ii. 5 ets ©eds, CIS kcii piea-LTrjs . . . : cf. 6 Sc /jua-LTrjs ivbs ovk tcrriv, o Se ©eos 

CIS eo-Tiv, iii. 19 f. 
ii. 6, Tit. ii. 14 I. X. 6 Sous eavTov vTrep irdvTwv : cf. I. X. tov Sdrros eavTov 

vTvip, 1. 4, 11. 20. 
iii. 16 eKrjpv^Or) ev iOveaiv : cf. b K-qpxKTcrw iv ^Bvecriv, ii. 2. 
v. 3 jxaXiara oiKctwv: cf. fj-dXiara Trpos t. otKCtov? (t. TrtaTCcos), vi. 10. 
VI. 3 ct Tts €Tepo8tSao-KaA.€t : cf. fJHTartdicrOe eis erepov cuayyeAiov o ou 

ecTTiv dXXo, i. 6 f. j €1 Tis u/tas euayyeAi^crai Trap b iXd^ere, i. 9. 

2 Tim. i. I kot' CTrayyeAtav, iii. 29. 

TltUS lil. 3-7 rjfJLiV . . . TTOTC Kol rj[Xi2<i dvorjTOl . . . SovXcT^OVTCS . . . OT€ Sc . . . 

KXrjpovofxoL : cf. Kol rjix€L^, 0T€ rjixiv vrjirioi, . . . ^p,€v ScSovAw/xeVot" ore 
8e . . . KX-qpovofJiOS, IV. 3— 7» 

v. Ephesians. 

1 Tim. i. 14 /xeTO. TTtCTTCtt)? Kat dyaTnjs '. cf. dydirrj /jlcto. TrtcrTea)?, VI. 23. 

1. 15 dfjLapTO)Xov<; wv TrpwTds €ip,t eyco : cf. ifxol t. iXa'^Laroripio ktX., iii. 8. 
lli. 1 6 tva ei' ep,ot evSei^Tai X. I. t. dTrdaav p.aKpo6vp.Lav : cf. Iva ivSei^rjraL 

. . . €</)' 17/xas €v X. I., 11. 7 j /ACTo, ixaKpoOvpLLas, iv. 2 ; Exod. ix. 16. 
ii. I Sci^crcis vTT€p TravTwv : cf. Serycret Trepi irdvTwv t. dyt'cuv, vi. 1 8. 
ii. 8 irpocrev^^ecrOai. ev TravTi (tottu)), vi. 18 (Kaipw). 
iii. 4 T€Kva €;(0VTa ev VTroTayrj : cf. TeKva vTraKoverc t. yov€i)o-tv, vi. I. 
iii. 8 p,-^ oivo) TToXAw 7rpocr€)(^ovTa<s : cf. p,^ /xiOvaKeaBe otvo), v. 18. 
iii. 16 p,€ya eo-rt to t. eio-e/Set'as /xvaT-qpiov (cf. eKKXrjaia, VS. 15) : cf to 

/xvcTTrjpiov TovTO peya eo-Tt, Aeyw ets • • . T. iKKXrjcrLav, V. 32. 
vi. I f. SovAot . . . SovAcucTwo-av : cf. vi. 7. 
vi. 13 ©eov T. ^. TO, TrdvTa : cf, i. 10. 

2 Tim. 1. 8 ip-k Tov Seo-p-tov atiTov : cf. eyo) o 8€0-p.tos ev Kuptu), iii. I, iv. I. 



173 APPENDIX II 

i. lO <^wTt'<ravTOS . . . 8ta t. evayyeXiov: cf. evayyeXLcracrOaL kol cjiWTLcrai, 

iii. 9. 
ii. I ivSvvaixov iv t. ')(apLTL t. ev X. I. : cf. ivSvvafxovcrOe iv Kvptw, VI. 10. 
ii. 15 Tov Xoyov T^s dA>/^€tas, !• 13. 
iv. 3 /caTo. ras iiriOvfxias T. tSta? : cf. Kara tols iTnOvjXLas T. airaTT]^, IV. 2 2. 

Titus i. 5 TouTov X"-P'-^' ^^^' ^> ^4* 

11. 5 VTTOTacra-ofxevas tols iSt'ots dvSpacrii', V. 21 f. 

jl. 9 Soi;Aovs iStois SeoTTTOTats vTroTd(T(T€cr6ai : cf. ot boCXoi v7ra/coi;€T€ Tois 

Kara ardpKa KvpLOL<;, VI. 5. 
iii. 3—5 rjfjiev . . . 7roT£ Kai r]fxe1<s . . . iTnOvjXLaL<s • . • ^pi/o-Tor?;? . • . ovk i^ 

epytDV . . . ecrw(r€v ^/aSs 8ta Xovrpov . . . 8ia I. X. . . . ttXovo-iws . . . tt; 

eKeivov )(a.pLTL : cf. Kat i7)u,crs . . . ttots iv t. C7rt^v/xtai9 . . . ^fJnOa . . . 

7rXovaLO<s wv . . . TO . . . ttAovtos t'^s xdpLT0<5 avTov iv -)(py}(JT6-riTi i<^ 

yfJLas iv X. I. rf] yap )(apiTL iare (r€(T(i)(rfJi€VOL . . . ovk ii epyuiv, ii. 3-7 ; 

Ka6apLcra<; tw Xovrp^, V. 26. 

vi. Philippiaiis. 

1 Tim. i. 2 TifioOeo) yvrjaio) TeKvm ', cf. Ti^o^eov . . . on ws Trarpl t^kvov . . ., 

ii. 19, 22 (yvT^o-ie, iv. 3). 
ii. 8 )((iypl<s 6pyr]<i kol SiaXoytcr/Aoi) : cf. XiJ^pls yoyyvcr/xuiv Kat SiaAoyicr/AoJi', 

ii. 14. 
iv. 3 ^era €v\apt(7TLa<;, iv. 6. 
iv. 12 TWOS yiVor : cf. iii 17. 

iv. 15 iva o^ou ^ TrpoKOTTT] (f)av€pa jj Tracriv : cf. 1. 12 f., 25. 
V. 4 firjSifjLiav . . . TU) a.vTLKi.Lp.€Via : cf. i. 28. 
vi. 4 (fiOovos, epL'S, i. 15' 

2 Tim. i. 3 ev T. BerjaeaL fxov : cf. ev Trdcrj] SeijaeL /jlov, 1. 4. 

i. 4 iva x^pSs TrXrjpuiOu) : cf. TrXrjpwa-aTe fiov Tr]v ■)(apdv, 11. 2. 

i. 10 T. o-wT^/oo? 17/Awv I. X. : cf. (TUiTrjpa ... I. X., lii. 20. 

i. 13 wv Trap i/xov ^KOvaa<; : cf. a i7Xovo-aTe ev i/xoi, iv. 9. 

ii. 3 ws KttXos (TTpaTKDTr]? X. I. : cf. T. (TvvaTpaTLU)Tr]v fiov, li. 25. 

ii. 9 /te'xpi Secr/Acuv ... 6 Xdyos t. ©eov ov Se'ScTai : cf. ii. 30, i. 12-17 f. 

i. 16-18 : cf. ii. 25-30, p. 129 f. 

iv, 6-22 : cf. p. 112 f. 

Titus i. 10 ixdXicTTa ol £K T^?, iv. 22. 

iii. 15 d<7Trdt,0VTaL ere ol fxcT ifiov TrdvTcs, iv. 21 f. {(tvv), p. 1 1 6. 

vii. Colossians. 

I Tim. i. I X. I. T^s iXir&o'i : cf. i. 27. 
i. 4 oLKOvofJiLav Oeov, i. 25. 
i. 17 doparQ ©ew, l. 15- 



APPENDIX II 173 

iii. 7 Set 3^ KoX fJiaprvpLav Ka\r]i' ^x^'-^ "^^ '^^^ t^cu^iv : cf. iv. 5. 

iii. 15 tva ciStjs ttws Sei . . ., IV. 6. 

iii. 16 TO fivcrrrjpLov . . . os ifftavepwOrj : cf. to fJiVCTTrjpiOv icf)avepii)6r], i. 26. 

iv. 3, 6 TOts TTUTToTs K. iTTiyuwKoo'L T. aXyjOeiav . . d8€X</)ors : cf. TOts TriaTois 
dSeX^ois .... eWyj/core t. X'^P'-^ ''"• ®fo^ ^i' aXrjOeia, i. 2, 6. 

iv. 6 KttXos SiaKovos X. I. : cf. ttio-tos StctKovo? T. Xp., i. 7. 

iv. 10 €ts TOVTO KOTriS)fX€v K. ayoivit^opi^Oa : cf. eis o kottlu) dycovt^o/ACVOS, i. 29. 

vi. 12 CIS ^v e/cXi/^i^s, iii. 15. 

vi. 21 17 X'^P'-'* P'^^ vp-wv, iv. 18. 
2 Tim. iv. 6-22 : cf. pp. in ff., 122 ff. 
Titus i. 10 01 Ik TrepiTop.rj'i, iv. II. 

viii. I Thessalo7iians. 

1 Tim. 1. 14 TTLcrreo)^ Kai dyaTrr/?, V. 8. 

V. I TrapaKaXei ws Trarepa : cf. ws TraTTjp TeKva TrapaKaXovvTes, U. II. 
v. 5 w/cTos x. 7]p.epa<i, ui. lO. 

V. 21 Kttl Ot AoiTTOt', iv. 13. 

2 Tim. 1. 3 f. X'^P'-^ ^X'^ '''*? ®^'? . • . ws . . . €;;(w t^v Trepi crov fiveiav, iv t. 

SiijaecTL fxov vvktos k. i^/x-epas iinTroOwv ae tSeiv . . . tVa ^apas TrXrjpoiOu) . . . 
Trjs iv (Tol . . . TTtOTccos : cf. ev;(apto"Toii/xev tw ©ew, i. 2, 13 j on ^X^^^ 
fiv€iav riixu>v . . . cTrtTTO louvres 17/Aas iSetv KaOdirep k. rjfjLiiS vp.a.^ . . . ctti 
Trdcrrj t. X^P^ V X^^P'^P'^^ S'' v/xas . . . vvktos k. rjp.ipas . . . Sed/tej/oi cis 
TO iSeiv ktA. . . . T^9 TTt'orecos vfxwv, iii. 6, 10. 

IV. 18 «is TT/v fSaatXeiav avTov, 11. 12. 

Titus 11. 3 TTLCTTCL . . . dydiry . . . vTrop-ovfj : cf. l. 3. 

ix. 2 Thessalonians. 

I Tim. ii. 12 cV rjavx'^^ '• cf- iii- 12. 

li. 15 cnoOrjcreTai . . . cv TrtcrTCi Kat dyLaa/xta : cf. eis (TMTrjpiav iv dyiacrpio 
. . . Kat TTt'crret; li. 13. 

VI. l4p,expi.T. eTTt^avei'as t. Kuptov I. X. ... : cf. t. €7rt</)ai/ci'a t. Trapouo'ias 
auTov (Kuptou), ii. 8. 

Titus ii. 8 tva o e^ evavTi'as ivTpa-Tryj : cf. ct 8c Tis ouk vTraKOvei t. Aoyw rjfiwv . • . 
TOVTOV (j-qp-iiovaOe. . . . iva ivTpairrj, ui. 1 4. 

X. Philemo7i. 
I Tim. i. 9 ctSws on, 21. 

ill. 13 iroXA^v irapprjdlav iv Xpi(rTU), 8. 

V. 13 dp.a 8e Kat, 2 2. 

VI. 2 01 (SoDXot) TTtcTTOus e^ovTcs 8co"7rora5 . . . on d8eX<^ot etcrti', dXXa 
p,dXXov SovXeufTCJorav, on ttkttol etcn Kat dyaTrrjTot: cf. t. TrtVnj' r/v* 



174 APPENDIX II 

€i^et?, 5 } ovkItl <x)9 SovXov dWa VTr\p hovXov, aoc\<fiov ayaTrrjTov 
TTOcro) §€ fiaXXov . . ., 1 6. 
2 Tim. IV. ir fjLOL evxpr](rTo<s cts SiaKovMv, ii. 



xi. More than one Pauline Epistle. 

I Tim. i. I ITavXos aTroo-roXos X. I., 2 Cor. i. i ; Eph. i. r ; Col. i. i. 

KttT cTTiTayi/v, Rom. xvi. 26 ; i Cor. vii. 6 ; 2 Cor. viii. 8. 
1. 2 x*P'5 • • • cip'?V7/ a-Ko ®€oS Trarpos Kai X. I. t. Kupt'ov t^/awv ; cf. ')(p.pi% 

vylv Kol elp-^vyj airb ©eovTrarpos ^/awj/ k. Krpt'ou I. X., Rom. i. 7 j ^ Cor. 

i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i. 3 ; Eph. i. 2 ; Phil. i. 2 ; Philem. 3. 
i. 8 oiSa/Acv oTL, Rom. ii. 2, iii. 19, viii. 28 ; i Cor. viii. r, 4 ; 

2 Cor. v. I. 
1. 1 1 TO evayyiXiov . . . o i7n(TT€v9r]v iyw : cf. 7re7rt(TTCV/x.ai to ciiayyeXiov, 

Gal. ii. 7 j 8€SoKLfji.d(rfji.e6a . . . iruTTevOrivai to evayyeXiov, I ThesS. ii. 4. 
i. 12 X. I. TO) Kvpto) T7/XWI/, Rom. vi. 23, viii. 39 ; i Cor. xv. 31 ; Eph. 

iii. 11: cf. Phil. iii. 8 {/xov). 
i. 17 Soia CIS TOtis atwi/as twv atwvwv. dfiyv, Rom. xvi. 27 ; Gal. i. 5 ; 

Phil. iv. 20 : cf. Eph. iii. 21. 
ii. I IlapaKaXw ovv, Rom. xii. I ; i Cor. iv. 16 ; Eph. iv. i. 
ii. 3, V. 4, 21, vi, 13. eVwTrtoj/ Tov 0eov, Rom. xiv. 22 ; i Cor. i. 29; 

2 Cor. iv. 2, vii. 12 ; Gal. i. 20. 
ii. 5 eh 0€os, Rom. iii. 30 ; i Cor. viii. 6 ; Gal. iii. 20 ; Eph. iv. 6. 

CIS . . . av^pwTTos X. I. : cf. Rom. v. 15 ; i Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; 

Eph. iv. 5 ; Gal. iii. 16, 20. 
ii. 7 ov y}/€vSofjiai, Rom. ix. i ; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Gal. i. 20. eV dX-qOua, 

2 Cor. vii. 14; Eph. v. 9, vi. 14; Col. i. 6. 
ii. 8 Iv iravri to'ttw, I Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14 ; i Thess. i. 8. 
ii. 15 €v dyiao-/>iw, I Thess. iv. 4, 7 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 
iii. 13 TToWrjv Trapprja-iav, 2 Coi. iii. 12, vii. 4; Philem. 8. 
iii. 15 0eov ^wvTos, Rom. ix. 26: cit. Hos. ii. i ; 2 Cor. iii. 3, vi. 16; 

1 Thess. i. 9. 

iv. 5 Xo'yos ©eoS, Rom. ix. 6 ; r Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2 ; 

Phil. i. 14; Col. i. 25; r Thess. ii. 13. 
iv. 6 StttKovos XptcTTov, 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; Col. i. 7. 
V. 10(2 Tim. ii. 2r, iii. 17; Titus i. 16, iii. i) irdv tpyov dyaOov, 

2 Cor. ix. 8; Col. i. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 17; tpyov dya66v, Rom. ii. 7, 
xiii. 3 ; Eph. ii. 10; Phil. i. 6. 

V, 13 ou fjiovov 8e . . . dXXa. Kai, Rom. V. 3 ; 2 Cor. viii. 19; Eph. 
i. 21; Phil. i. 29; I Thess. i. 5. 



APPENDIX 11 175 

2 Tim. i. I IIaOXo5 olttoo-toXos X. I. Sia 6eX-^[JLaT0<s ®eov, 1 Cor. i. I ; 2 Cor. 

i. I ; Eph. i. i ; Col. i. i. 8ia 6eXr]fjiaTo<; ©eoS, Rom. xv. 32 ; 

2 Cor. viii. 5. 
i. 3 (i Tim. V. 5) vvKTos koI rifx-epa?, I Thess. ii. 9, iii. 10; 2 Thess. 

iii. 8. imTToOwv <t€ (v/aSs) tSeti/, Rom. i. 11; Phil. ii. 26; 

I Thess. iii. 6. 
i. 8 SvVa/Ais &eov, Rom. i. 16 ; i Cor. i. 18, 24, ii. 5; 2 Cor. vi. 7, 

xiii. 3 f. (Eph. i. 19 iii. 7 airov). 
i. 9 Kara X'^P'-^ '''V So^etcrav Ty/Atv, Rom. xii. 6; i Cor. iii. 10 (jxol) : 

cf. Rom. xii. 3 ; i Cor. i. 4 ; 2 Cor. viii. i ; Gal. ii. 9 ; Eph. iii. 

2, 7; Col. i. 25. Kara irpoOeaiv, Rom. viii. 28; Eph. i. II, iii. 11. 

KaXeVavTOS KXyaet (ayta) : cf. t. KAr;(rei ^ iKXrjOr], I Cor. vii. 2 o ; 

T. KAT/creoJS ^s iKXi^OrjTe, Eph. IV. I. 
i. 10 (Titus i. 3) . . • (fyavepwOeta-av 8e vvv : cf. . . .cl3av€pw6ivTO<i 8e vw, Rom. 

xvi. 26 ; vw Sc i(liavep(j)Or], Col. i. 26. Sta tou evayyeXiov, I Cor. 

iv. 15 ; Eph. iii, 6 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14. 
iii. 15 CIS o-wT-qpiav (Isa. xlix. 6), Rom.i. 16, x. i, 10; 2 Cor. vii. 10; 

Phil. i. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 13 (Acts xiii. 47 ; i Pet. i. 5, ii. 2). 
Titus i. I IlaCAos ^ovXo<i, Rom. i. i; Phil. i. i : cf. i Cor. vii. 22; 

Gal. i. 10; Col. iv. 12. iKXeKTwv ®€ov, Rom. viii. 33; Col. iii. 12. 
i. 2* €77* iXmSi, Rom. iv. 18, v. 2, viii. 20; i Cor. ix. 10. 
i. 10 01 €K 7r€ptTo/A^?, Col. iv. II ; Gal. ii. 12. 
ii. II 17 x^P'-'* ''■^^ 0eov, Rom. v. 15 ; i Cor. i. 4, xv. 10 ; 2 Cor. i. 12 ; 

Gal. ii. 21 ; Eph. iii. 2 ; Col. i. 6 ; 2 Thess. i. 12. 
iii. 5 ovK i$ epyoiv, Rom. iii. 20, xi. 6 ; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 9. 

c. 

I PETER AND THE PASTORALS 

I Tim. i. I naJ}Xo5 ctTTOcrToXos X. I. /car iTriTayyjv ®eov crwTrjpo'i : cf . IIcTpos 
a.7rdo"ToXos I. X. Kara, irpoyvoidiv ©coO Trarpos, i. I f. 
i. 5 TO 8e T€Xos . . . aydirq Ik Ka9apa.<i KapStas k. crvvctSr/o-ccos dya^^s k. 
TTt'cTTeoJS avvTTOKpLTOV ', cf. TO Sc TcXos • . . cjiiXaSeXcfioi, in. 8 1 €IS 
(f)LXaSeX(jiLav avvTroKptrov Ik KaOapa<; KapStas dXXr/Xous dyaTn](TaT€, 
i. 2 2, and i. 9. 
i. 19 e;)(cov . . . dya6yjv crvvecSTjcrLV, ui. 16, 21. 

ii. 1-3 TrapaKaXu) . . . iroulaOai Serjcrei,^ . . . vTrep ySacrtXttov k. TravTOiV Tcuv 
iv VTrepoxrj ovtcov . . . tovto KaXov k. diroS^KTOv cvwTrtov t. @eov : cf. 
TrapaKoXw, ii. 1 1 , vTrordyrjTe irda-rj dvOponrLvrj KTicrei, . . . citc ySacrtXtt, 
0)5 VTTipixpvTi, eiTC rjy^fjLoa-iv, li. 13 3 oti outws co-ti to 6iXrip.a t. 0€OV, 
ii. 15. 



176 APPENDIX II 

ii. 7 ''■o lidprvpiov ... €19 o ired-qv eyw : cf. to) Aoya> . . . cis o Koi ircOrjcrav, 

ii. 8 (2 Tim. i. 11). 
11. 9 uicravTOiS ywat/cas tv Karao-ToXy] Koa-fino . . . Koa-fx-iLv cauras, fJi.r) iv 
TrXeyfxacn k. ^v(rc(a . . . r) i/Aartcr/Aw rroXvTeXeL, dXX' (6 TrpeireL yvvaiilv 
cTrayyeXXo/Aevais OeocrefiiLav) . . . : cf. 6//,oi<os yvvatKe<s . . . uiv ccttw ov;^ 
o €^(jiOev ifnrXoKrj'S Tpi\(x}v k. Trtpt^ecrcws )(^pv(TL(j}v r/ evSvcrcws IjJiaTiwv 
Koarfio's, dXX' . . . o ecTTti/ cvcuttiov t. ©eou TroAvreXe?, iii. 3. 
11. 15 ev dytac/Aa), 1. 2. 
iii. 2 ^iXofevov, iv. g. 

iii. 7 Set 8c K. ixaprvpiav KaXr]v ^X^*-^ "''"^ ™'' ^^'^^ev, iva ;ii^ et? ovei8t(7/;-ov . . ., 
iii. 15 TTcus 8et . . . dvacTTpefjiecrOaL : cf. t^v a.va(TTpo(f>r]v vfxwv iv t. 
WvecTLV t-)(pvT€<i KaX'QV, Lva iv <S KaTaXaXovatv vfxwv, li. 12. 
lil. 8 SittKovovs . . • fir] aio";^OKep8ers : cf. TrpecrfivTepov; . . . /Ai^Se alcr)(poKep- 

8w?, V. I f. 
iii. 15 cv otKw ©€o9, iv. 17. 

lli. 16 i(f)avcpu)6ir] iv crapKL, cf. ^avarco^eis p-lv (rapKi, 111= 18 f. 
ihiKaiMQ-q iv TTvevfiaTi, ^woTroiTy^els 8e Trviv/xaTi, 

u>(f>07] dyye'Xot?, vTrorayivTiav avr^ dyyeXwv, 

iKripv^Or] iv Wvecriv, rots ev (f>vXaK'^ 7rvei;/x,acrt . . . iKrjpv^ev . . . 

iTrt(TT€v6r) iv Koafiw, €is bv TrtoTCvovTes, li. 6 f. 

dveX-qfjiOr] iv So^. os ecrrtv ev Seita tov ®eov ktX., 111. 2 2. 

IV. 12 /xrjSiL^ (TOV . . . KaracjipoveCTU), dXXa tvttos yivov t. 7rio"T<iov . . . cr 
dvacTTpocfifj , . . iv dyveta : cf. /at^S d)s KaraKvpievoi'Tes . . . dAXa TVTroi. 
yivofjievoL t. -rroLfjiVLOV, V. 3 j dyioi iv Trdcrr) dva(TTpo(f>rj yevrjOyjTe, 1. 15. 

iv. 14 fir] dfxeXcL TOi) ev crot ^apiicr/xaTos : cf. cKacrros Ka^oj? eXa/Se \dpi(rfjia, 
iv. 10. 

V. I irpeafivTepM , . . irapaKaXu ws warepa, veoiTepov; ws dSeX^ovs : cf. 
Trpeaf^vTepovs  . . irapaKaXw, V. I J j/ewrcpot, VTroTayrjTe Trpecr/^uTepoi?, 

v. 5 17 8e ovTws X^/"^ • • • ^Xttikcv cttI ©ew : cf. at dyt'ai ywaiKcs ai 
cXTTt^ovo-ai CIS ®e6v, iii. 5- 

V. 14 fJLTjSeixiav dcfyop/xrjv SiSovat tcS dvTLKetfjiivio XotSopt'as X'^P'-^ • ^^" /^^ 
aTToStSovTC? . . . XotSoptaj/ dvTi XotSoptas, ill. 9. 

vi. I SouXoi, Tous iStous SetTTTOTas 7rd(rr]<; Ti/x^s d^t'ovs rjycLcrauicrav : cf. 01 
oiKcrat VTTOTacrcrofievoL , . . rots SccrTrorat?, 11. 18. 

VI. 12 CIS r^v iKX-q6r]<; : cf. cis tovto iKXrjdrjre, 111. 1 9. 

vi. fj f. fir] vif/rjXocfipoveLV, . . . dyadoepyelv : cf. r^v TaTreLvo(f)poa-vvr]v, V. 5 ; 

dya^OTTOtovvTcs, ii. 20. 
2 Tim. i. I f. n. dTToo-ToXos X. I. . . . ©cou Trarpos . . . X. I. . . . x^^P'^j eXcos, 

dprjvyj, ... X. I. T. Kupt'ou rjixwv, i. I— 3- 
i. 5 dvuTTO/cptTOS, 1. 2 2, i. 6 xapto'P'aj iv. lO. 



APPENDIX II 177 

i. 12 8t qv aiTtav k. ravra Tracrxw" aXX' ovk iTratCTXvvofjLaL, oT8a yap w 
TTCTricTTeuKa, K. TreTTCio-yuat oTt SvvaTOS ecTTt T. TrapadrJKi^v fiov cf)vXd$ai : 
cf. /A^ yap Tts v/xwv 7racr;)(eTa) ws . . . KaKOTroibs . . . et Se ws Xpto-Tiavds, 
/x^ aio-xweV^w, iv. 15; 6 nicreycoN en ayt(u o-f mh kataicxynQh, ii. 6; 
wo-re K. 01 Tracrxovres Kara to OiXruj-a t. ©eoC ttio-tw KTiarr) Trapart^e- 
o-^cjcrav ras vf/vxd's, IV. 19. 

ii. 3 (Ls KaXos o-TpaTtwT>ys : cf. ws KaXoi oiKovofioi, iv. 10. 

ii. 8 I. X. iyr]y€pfj.€vov ix i/eKpwv : cf. l. 3, 21. 

ii. 9 £V (S KaKOTraOiii . . . ws KaKOvpyos • . . Travra virofj.iv(a ktA. : cf. ev w 
KaraXaXovo-tv tip,a)v ws KaKoiroLwv, . . . et dya^OTTOtovvTcs k. Trao-xovres 

{iTTO/ACVeiTC, 11. 12, 20. 
ii. 22 iK KapStas, i. 2 2. 
iii. 15 €ts (TWTrjpiav 8ta 7rt(rT€U)S, l. 5- 
iv. I Toi) p.eXXoi'Tos KpLveiv ^wvTas Kai veKpou's : cf. tw iTOL/xw; Kptvovri 

^wvTas Kat veKpovs, IV. 5. 
Titus i. I n. aTToo-ToXos I. X. Kara TTto-Tiv ckXcktcov ®eov : cf. II. (XTrdo-ToXos 

I. X. . . . ckXcktois . . . Kara 7rpdyvwo-tv ©eov, i. I. 
iii. 5 Kara to avToi) eXcos : cf. KaTo, to ttoXv avrov IXcos, l. 3- 
ii. 3 np(cr(3vTi8a<i waavTws • • • Tas veas . . . ii7roTao-o-o/x.€vas TOis tSiois 

dvSpao-tv : cf. 6p,ot'o)S yi;varK€S v7roTao-o-d/x,evat TOts iStots dvSpdcriv, ill. I. 

D. 

I CLEMENT AND THE PASTORALS 

I Tim. i. 16 Tu)v [xeWovTwv incrTeveiv, xlii. 4. 

i. 17 Tw Sk jSacrtXet twv atwvwv . . . 8d^a eis tous atwvas twv aiwvwv. 

dp-Tyv : cf. jSacriXev twv aiwi/ojv, Ixi. 2 . . . ; w ecrTw 17 8d|a cts tous aiwvas 

twv alwvwv. d/xriv, XXXU. 4. 
ii. 3 KaXov Koi oTrdScKTov €vw7rtov tou 0£oD : cf. KaXov Kat TrpocrSiKTOv 

IvcoTTiov Tou TTotT^cravTOS •i7P^ds, Vll. 3. 
ii. 6 (vi. 15, Titus i. 3) Katpois tStois, xx. 4, 10. 

ii. 7 ev 7rL(jT€L Kol d\7]$€ia, Ix. 4. 

ii. 8 /3orXop,at ouv Trpocrcuxeo-^at tovs avSpas . . . cTratpovTas oo-tous x^^P"^ : 

cf. Trpoo-eX^wpcv o'j/ auTw ev baioTYjTi i/^X'^^' "y*'"? xat d)U,tdvT0V9 

X€tpas aipovTfS, XXIX. I. 
ii. 9 f. Koo-p-cTv eauTttS . . . 8t' epywv dya^wv : cf. ev epyots dya^ots . . . 

iKoa-fi-qOrjcrav, XXXIU. 7. 
V. 1 7 01 KaXws Trpoco-TWTCS Trpco-^vTcpoi StTrX^s Tip,^s d^ioucr^toorav : cf. 

Tifirjv T^v Ka^r^KOucrav uTrovcpovTcs tois Trap' vp,tv irpea-^vrepois, 1- 3 > 

EVtovs p,€TrjydyeTC KaXws TroXtTev/xe'vous, xliv. 6. 
V. 2 1 fxrjhkv TTOttov KaTa TrpdcTKXicriv : cf. p,-^ KaTu. TrpoaKXicreis, Xxi. 7, 1. 2. 

239D N 



17^ APPENDIX II 

V. 24 f. TLVwi' . . . ai ayuaprtat TrpoSrjXoL etcrt, Trpodyovcrai els KpLcriv : cf. 
u)v TO Kplfxa TrpohrjXov iyevT^Orj, li. 3. 

vi. I {'TTo ^vyov, xvi. 17. 

VI, 7 f. e;i^ovT€s StaT/DO(^as k. crKeTracr/xaTa, rowots apKea6r]<T6iJ.e6a : cf. rots 
i(fiobiOiS Tov ©£oO dpKov/x-evot, 11. 2. 

2 Tim. 1. 3 ©€w w AarptTJO) . . . er KaOapa crvvetSrjo-ei : cf. twv ev KaOapa. 
(TVV€i^rj(T€i XaTp€v6vTwv Tw . . . ovojjLaTL avTov, xlv. 7. 

II. 2 a r}KOV(ras Trap ifxov . . . ravra Trapddov TrtcTTOis avOpiairois, otVtves 
lAcaj'ot ctrovrat /<at krepovs biSd^ai : cf. xliv. ot (XTrocrToAot . . . KaTecrTy]crav 
Tovs TTpoeip'qixivovi, K. /xeraiv l-mpiovrjv SeSojKaaiv ottws, idv kolixtjOuxtlv, 
StaSe'l^coi'Tat erepoL SeSoKt/xaa-jxevoL avSpes r^v Aetroupytav avrSyv, xliv. 2 j 
eTrefxif'afxev . . . avSpas Trfo-rovs . . . otVives /<• fxdpTvpes ecrovrat, Ixiii. 3. 

ii. 12 apvrjcraaOai yap iavTov ov Swarai, (TitUS i. 2 6 dij/evSi]? ©eds) : cf. 
oi'Sev yap dSwarov Trapa tw ©eui, ct /a^ to \j/ev(raaOai, xxvii. 2. 

ii. 22 To-S vewrepiKas liri6vp.Las (f>evye : cf. ^euyoi'res . . . fxiOas T£ k. 
vcMTeptcr/xovs k. ySScXvKTas eTrt^uyutas, XXX. I. 

II. 3 1 eis ttSv epyov dyaOov rjTOLfxacrfJiivov : cf. ets ttSv epyov ayaObv erot/xoi, 
ii. 7. 

iil. 15 ff' ifpa ypdfxfxara: cf. tepas ypacfids, liii. i, xlv. 2 f. 
Titus 1. 5 "''^ KaTaa-TTjcrys Kara iroXiv Trpecrfivripovi ktX. : cf. Kara . . . 
7rdAei5 Kr]pv(TCTOVTi<s KaOia-Tavov t. (XTrap^^as avrijov, , . . els einaKOTrovs 
Kal ^laKovovs . • •, xlli. 4. 

ii. 5 tVa (ru)(f>povLt,wcn rot? veas cjaXdvSpovs cTvat, , . . crdxppovas, dyvds, 
olKovpyovs, VTTOTao'crop.ivas rots iSiois dvSpdcriv : cf. yvvai^lv . . . ev 
afXMfno K. (TCfxyrj k. dyvfj avveiSijcrei, . . . (rrepyovcras KaOrjKovTws tovs 
avSpas iavTwv' iv t€ tw /cavdvt t^? VTroTayT^s {'7rap;!^ovcras to. Kara tov 
oIkov crefxvws oiKOvpyeiv cSiSacrKere, irdvv a-ux^povovaas, i. 3. 

il. 10 TTLCTTLS dya$7], xxvi. I. 

ii. 14 Aaon nepioyciON, Ixiv. i. 

ui. I Trpos TTOLV tpyov dyaOov iTOLfxovs etvat, li. 7 J wp_>^at5 e^orcri'ats VTroTdcr- 
(recrOat : cf. {iTroracrcrd/xevot rots r/yovp-evots vfxwv, 1. 3. 

III. 8 KaAa Kat w^eAi/xa, 1x1. 2. 



179 



APPENDIX III 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. Special editions and Introductions to the Pastorals. 

F. Schleiermacher, / Tim. Berl. 1807 ; H. L. Planck, / Tim. Gott. 
1808; J. F. Beckhaus, Hapax Leg. in i Tim. Ling. 18 ro; J. A. L. 
Wegscheider, i Tim. Gott. 1810; C. T. Kuinoel, Titus (in Co7n. 
Theol. ed. Velthusen), 1812;}. F. C. Loffler, 'i Tivci..^ {Kleine Schriften), 
Weimar, 1817; H. G. Van den Es, Lugd. Bat. 1819; H. F. Eisner 
{Pai/lus u. Jesaias, p. 17 ff.), Vratisl. 1819 ; A. L. C. Heydenreich, 
Hadamar, 1826-8; A. Curtius, / Tim. Ber. 1828; A. Koraes, Tit. 
Paris, 1828-31; J. Broechner, Hafn, 1829; G. Boehl, Ber. 1829; 
J..F. V. Flatt (ed. C. F. Kling), Tiib. 1831 ; E. Demole, 2 Tim. Geneva, 
183 1 ; F. C. Baur, Stuttgart, 1835 ; U. J. Mack, Tub. 1836 ; G. E. Leo, 
Lips. 1837-50, Zittau, 1884; M. Baumgarten, Ber. 1837; E. T. 
Mayerhoff, Col. mit vorn. Beriicksichtigung der drei Past. Ber. 1838; 
C. S. Matthies, Greifswald, 1840; L. R. Rolle, Arg. 1841 ; R. M0ller, 
Copenhagen, 1842 ; F. Hitzig {Joh. Markus u. seine Schriften, p. 154 ff.), 
Zurich, 1843 ; A. Barnes, N. York, 1845 ; Blau, Tit. 1846 ; C. Scharling, 
Jena, 1846; S. F. Good, Montauban, 1848; J. E. Huther (Meyer's Comm.\ 
Gott. 1850, E. Tr., Edin, 1881 ; J. B. Sumner, Lon. 1851; A. Saintes, 
Par. 1852 ; T, Rudow, Gott. 1852 ; P. Doumergue, / Tim. Strassb. 1856 ; 
A. Dubois, / Tim. Strassb. 1856; W. Mangold, Irrlehrer der PB. 
Marburg, 1856 ; C. J. Ellicott, Lon. 1856, ^1883 ; H. E. Vinke, Utrecht, 
1859; J. Diedrich, Lips, i860; W. Graham, Tit. Lon. i860; C. W. 
Otto, Lips, i860; F. Marcker, Meiningen, 1861 ; F. G. Ginella, Vratisl. 
1865; E. Belin, Strassb. 1865; A. C. Larsen, Copenh. 1869; J. T. Plitt, 
Ber. 1872; P. Bordier, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1872; E. Herzog, Ab- 
fasstcngszeit der PB. 1872 ; P. Fairbairn, Edin. 1874 ; R. Rothe, Wittenb. 
1876; E. Reuss, Par. 1878; J. T. Beck, / and 2 Ti?n. Giitersl. 1S79 j 
P. Cassel, Tit. Ber. 1880; H. J. Holtzmann, Lips. 1880; H. Koelling, 
/ Tim. Ber, 1882-7 ; L. Lemme, Das echte Ermahnungsschreiben des Ap. 
Paulus an Tim. Bresl. 1882 ; J. Cuendet, La Doctrine des Ep. Past. 
Lausanne, 1883; E. Kiihl, Die Gemeitideordnung in deti PB. Ber. 1885; 
J. Miiller, Verf. der chr. Kirche in den ersten beiden Jhdten. u. . . Kritik 
der PB. Lips. 1885 ; A. Rowland, Lon. 1887 ; K. Knoke, Gott. 1887-9 ; 
A. Plummer, Lon. 1888; E. Bertrand, Par. 1888; F. H. Hesse, 
Halle, 1889 ; M. F. Sadler, Lon. 1890; A. Bourquin, Geneva, 1890; 
A. E. Humphreys, Camb. 1895 ; F. Uehninger, Die Grundbegriffe der 

N 1 



i8o APPENDIX III 

PB., Giitersl. 1896; H. P. Liddon, / Tim. 1897; E. Riggenbach and 
O. Zockler, ^1897; A. Roricht, Giitersl. 1897; J. H. Bernard, Camb. 
1899; F. W. Stellhorn, Giitersl. 1S99; ^^ • E. Bowen, Lon. 1900; 
R. F. Horton, Edin. 1901 ; R. M. Pope, Lon. 1901 ; J. P. Lilley, Edin. 
1901 ; W. Kelly, Tit. and Phi km. Eon. 1901 ; P. Ewald, Probabilia betr. 
den Text des i Tim. Erlangen, 1901 ; E. Krukenberg, Giitersl, 1901; 
J. V. Andel, Leiden, 1904; A. Schlatter, Stuttg. 1904 ; T. C. Laughlin, 
The P.E. in the Light of One Romati Imprisonment, California, 1905; 
J. D. James, Lon. 1906 ; J. E. Belser, Freiburg, 1907 ; E. Xantop, / Tim. 
Neumiinster, 1909; F. Mddex, Hauptproblejjie der PP., Miinster, 19 10; 
H. W. Fulford, Camb. 1911 ; R. St. J- Parry, Camb. 1920. 

2. N.T. Ifitroductions and Commentaries 

J. E. C. Schmidt, Giessen, 1804; J. Macknight, Apost. Epistles. Lon. 
1809; J. G. Eichhorn, Lips. 1812; T. H. Home, Lon. 1S18; L. 
Bertholdt, Erlangen, 1819; J. L. Hug, Stuttg. 1808; A. B. Feilmoser, 
Tiib. 1810-30; W. M. L. de Wette, Ber. 1826; H. C. F. Guerike, 
Halle, 1828; H. A. Schott, Jena, 1830; M. Schneckenburger, Stuttg. 
1832; K. A. Credner, Halle, 1836; C. G. Neudecker, Lips. 1840; 
J. B. Glaire, Par. 1841 ; E. Reuss, Halle, 1842, E. Tr., Edin. 1884; 
H. E. F. Guericke, N.-T Isagogik, Lips. 1842 ; K. A. Credner, Giessen, 
1843; W. M. L. de Wette, Lips. 1844; H. Alford, Lon. 1849-84; 
J. T. A. Wiesinger (in Olshausen's Cojmn.), 1850, E. Tr., Edin. 185 1; 
A. Maier, Freiburg, 1852; F. Reithmayr, 1852; J. J. van Gosterzee 
{l^diViges Bibelwerk, N.T. xi), Bielefeld, i860, E. Tr., Edin. 1869; F. 
Bleek, Ber. 1862 ; J. Langen, Freiburg, 1868; J. H. Friedlieb, Breslau, 
1868; 'B..'Ev}di\d,Sieben Sefidschr.des N. Bundes, pp. 2i6ff., Gott. 1870; 
O. Pfleiderer, Protestantenbibel, Lips. 1872 ; J. C. C. v. Hofmann, 
Nordlingen, 1874; A. Hilgenfeld, Lips. 1875; M. v. Aberle, Freib. 

1877 ; H. Wace (ed. Cook), Lon. 188 1 ; E. H. Plumptre, / attd 2 Tim., 
and J. O. Dykes, Tit. (^ch.2&'% Popular Cojnm.), Edin. 1882; S. Davidson, 
Lon. ^1882 ; B. Weiss (Meyer's Comm.) ''1885,'' ed. J. Weiss, Gott. 1894 ; 
W. Mangold (Bleek's Einl.), Ber. 1886; B. Weiss, 1886, E. Tr., Lon. 

1896; G. Salmon, Lon. '^1886; A. C. Hervey {Pulpit Cofnm.), Lon. 

1887 ; R. Kiibel (Strack and Zockler's Kurzgef. Konwi.), Nordlingen, 

1888 ; M. A. N. Rovers, Hertogenbosch, 2 1888 ; R. Corneley, Par. 1889 ; 

C. Trochon and H. Lesetre, Par. 1890; H. v. Soden, 1891 ; H. J. 

Holtzmann, Freib., 1885-92; J. B. Lightfoot [Biblical Essays, xi f., pp. 

399-437), Lon. 1893; F. Godet, Par. 1893; A. Julicher, Freib. 1894; 

F. S. Trenkle, Freib. 1897 ; Th. Zahn, Lips. 1897-1906 ; A. Riiegg {Aus 

Schrift u. Gesch., pp. 59-108), Basel, 1898 ; A. Schafer, Miinster, 1890 ; 



APPENDIX III i8i 

ft 
G. Desjardins, Par. 1900; J. M. S. Baljon, GescL van de Boeken des N. 
Verbonds, p^. 150-74, Groningen, 1901 ; J, Moffatt, Historical N. T. 
Edin. 1901 ; J. E. Belser, Freib. 1901 ; O. Cone {Interfiational Hand- 
books to the N. T. iii), 1901 ; B. W. Bacon, N. York, 1902 ; W. Lock 
{Hastings' D. B. iv, 'Timothy and Titus, Epp.'), Edin. 1902 ; J. Moffatt, 
Enc. Bibl.'w, ' Timothy and Titus, Epp.'), 1903; E. Jacquier, Par. 1903, 

E. Tr., 1907; E. Huhn, Tiib. 1904; H. v. Soden, Ber. 1905, E. Tr., 
Lon. and N. York, 1906 ; G. Wohlenberg (Zahn's N.-T. Komm. xiii). 
Lips. 1906; F. Koehler (J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T. ii), Gott. 1907; 

F. Barth, Giitersl. 1908; A. S. Peake, Lon. 1909; J. A. Beet, Lon. 
1909; C. R. Gregory, Lips. 1909; G. C. Martin, Lon. 1909 ; N. J. D. 
White {Expositors G. T. iv), Lon. 19 10; J. Moffatt, Edin. 191 1; 
W. F. Adeney, Lon. 191 1; M. Dibelius (H. lAezva?ir\n's Handb. zum 
iV:r.)Tub. 19 13. 

3. Paul afid Pauline Epistles 
J. T. Hemsen, Gott. 1830 ; K. Schrader, Lips. 1832-6; A. F. Dahne, 
Entwickelung des paulin. Lehrbegriffes, p. 14 f., Halle, 1835 ; H. Bottger, 
Gott. 1837-8; F. C. Baur, Stuttg. 1845; T. Lewin, Lon. 1851 ; A. 
Monod, Par. 1851 ; W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Lon. 1852; 
B.Bauer, Ber. 1852 ; A. Bisping, Exeg. Handbuch z. d. Br. d. Ap. Faulns, 
iii, Munster 1858; M. Vidal, Par. 1863; A. Hausrath, Heidelb. 
1865; E. Renan, Par. 1869; M. Krenkel, Lips. 1869; A. Sabatier, 
1870, E. Tr. {Appe?idix on the P. E., by G. G. Findlay), Lon. ^1903 ; F. 
Marcker, Giitersl. 1871 ; O. Pfleiderer, 1873, E. Tr., ii, pp. 194 ff., Lon. 
1877; P- J- Gloag, Edin. 1874; ^.^hzix^^e, Hist, of the Heb. Nation and 
its Literature, pp. 447 ff., Lon. ^1876 ; F. W. Bugge, Christiania, 1879- 
81 ; G. A. Berchter, Miilheim, 1885 ; G. Heinrici, Giessen, 1886; J. R. 
Boise, The Epistles of Paul ivritten after he became a prisoner, N. York, 
1887; P. Rambaud, Par. 1888; M. Krenkel, Braunschw. 1890 ; S. Arosio, 
Milan 1892 ; L. Bonnet, Lausanne, 1892 ; C. Clemen, Chronol. der 
paulin. Briefe, Halle 1893; id. Ei7iheitlichkeit der paulin. Briefe, Gott. 
1894 ; G. H. Gilbert, N. York, 1899 ; W. Lock, Paul the Master-Builder, 
Lon. 1899-1905 ; J. van Steenkiste, Bruges, 1899; H. Lisco, Vincula 
Saiictorum — Gefa?igenschaftsbriefe des Ap.^Paulus, Ber. 1900 ; A. S. ^Vay, 
Lon. 1901 ; R. U. Shaw, Edin. 1903-4 ; Th. Zahn (Herzog's Realencycl), 
Lips. 1904; C. Clemen, Giessen, 1904; M. Goguel, Par. 1904; H. 
Weinel, Tiib. 1904; B. W. Bacon, Story of S. Paul, 1905; R. J. 
Knowling, Testimony of S. Paul, pp. 121 ff., Lon. 1905; Th. Nageli, 
Wortschatz des Ap. Paulus, Gott. 1905 ; R. Scott, Edin. 1906 ; H. S. 
Nash {New SchaffHerzog EncycL, viii), N. York, 19 10; A. Schweitzer, 
Gesch. der paulin. Forschung, Tiib. 191 1; A. Deissmann, Tiib. 1911. 



i83 APPENDIX III 

&^ 

4. Second Imprisonment and Death of Paul 

R. Wolf, Lips. 1819 ; D. Schenkel {St. u. Krit. xiv. i, pp. 53-S7), 
1841 ; A. O. Kunze, Gott. 1848 ; A. Bisping, Monast. Guestphal., 1852 ; 
H. Opitz, Schicksale u. Schrifteti des Ap. Paulus wdhrend seiner Gefattg. 
zu Rom, Ziir, 1858; G. Astro, Tr. ad Rhen., 1859; L. Ruffet, Paris, 
i860; F. Spitta {Gesch. u. Litteratur des Urchristenthtwis, i. i. 1-108), 
Gott. 1893 ; R. Steinmetz, Lips. 1897 ; C. Fouard, Par. 1897 ; C. Erbes 
{Texteu. Untersuchungen . . . N. F.'w. r. pp. 1-66), Lips. 1899 ; J. Frey, 
Jurjew (Dorpat), 1900; J. Strachan {Westminster N. T., pp. 23 ff.), Lon. 
1910; F. Frey {Bidl. Zeit- u. Streitfragen, vi. 3); Ber. 191 1. 

JOURNALS, ETC. 

G. Reuterdahl, ' Tit.' {Theologisk Quartalschrift, iii. i, pp. 1-77), Lund, 
1 831; H. Bottger, 'Ueber einige die Einl. in die Pastoralbriefe betreffende 
Punkte ' {Z.f.g. L. T. u.K. III. iv, 1842-3); Fr. Delitzsch, 'Zurkrit. Frage 
liber die Past. {Z.f. g. L. T. u. K. xii, pp. 7 2 2 ff.. Lips. 1 85 1 ; Aberle, ' Ueber 
die Abfassungszeit des i Tim.' {Theol. Qiiartalschrift, pp. 120 ff.), Tiibin- 
gen, 1863 ; Wettler, ' Ueber die Hauptgrundsatze der Pastoral theologie, 
Tim. u. Tit.' {St. u. Krit., pp. 329 ff.), 1864; D. Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon, iv. 
393-402, Lips. 1872; Stirm, ' Die pastoraltheol, Winke der Pastoral briefe' 
(J.f. d. Th. xviii. i. pp. 34-86), Gotha, 1872; C. Weizsacker, 'Die Kir- 
chenverfassung des apost. Zeitalters' {/./. d. ^.,pp. 660 ff.), Gotha, 1873; 
O. Holtzmann, Z.f. w. Th.., pp. 12 1-8, 1875; id. Prot. Kirchenzeitujtg, pp. 
260 ff., 1875 ; F- Spitta, ' Ueber die personlichen Notizen im 2 Tim.' ( Th. 
Stud. u. Krit., pp. 582 ff.), Gotha, 1878 ; H. R. Reynolds, 'The Pastoral 
Epistles ' {Expositor, i. i-iv, viii, x), 1875-9; A. Hilgenfeld, 'Die Irrlehrer 
der Hirtenbriefe des Paulus' {Z.f. w. Th., pp. 448 ff.). Lips. 1880; O. 
Holtzmann, ' 2 Tim. u. d. neueste . . . Rettungsversuch ' {Z.f.tv. Th., pp. 
45-72), Lips. 1883 ; A. Hilgenfeld, 'Die Gemeindeordnung der Hirten- 
briefe '(Z./. w. 7^/^.,xxix, pp. 456 ff.). Lips. 1886; R. Seyerlen, 'Entstehung 
des Episcopals , . ,' {Z.f. prakt. Th. ix, pp. 212, 224 ff., 329 ff.), 1887 ; 
W. H. Simcox, 'The Pauline Antilegomena ' {Expositor, iil. viii, pp. 
180 ff.), London, 1888; H. Bois, 'Zur Exegeseder PB.'(///n5A Th., pp. 
i45ff.),Lips. 1888; Baljon, '...de conjectural critiek der I.en tweedeBrief 
aan Tim.' {Th. StJid.), 1888-9 ; W. P. Workman, ' The Hapax Legomena 
of St. Paul ' {Exp. Times, vii, pp. 418 f.), 1896 ; E. Y. Hincks, 'Authorship 
of the Pastoral Epp.' {/. of Bib/. Lit. xvi, pp. 94-117), Boston, 1897 ; A. 
Hilgenfeld, ' Die Hirtenbriefe des Paulus neu untersucht ' {Z.f w. Th., 
pp. 1-86), Lips. 1897; B.Weiss,'Present state of the inquiry concerning the 
genuineness of the Pauline Epp.' {American/. Theol., pp. 392 ff.), Chicago, 



APPENDIX III 183 

1897 ; J, Turmel, ' Histoire de Tinterpr. de i Tim. ii. 4' {J^ev. d'Hist. et de 
Lit. Rel.), 1900; A. Klopper, ' Christologie der PB.' (Z. / w. Th., pp. 
339ff.), 1902 ; E.J. Wolf, 'Peculiarities of the Pastoral Epp.'(^/i^/(?^/?/^i?«/, 
pp. 326 ff.), 1903 ; J. Albani, ' Bildersprache der PB.'(Z./ w. Th., pp 40- 
58), Lips. 1903; K. V. Burger, ' i Tim.' {/. f. d. ev. luth. Landeskirche 
Bayerns), 1903 ; H. J. Holtzmann, 'James Wohlenberg on the Past. Epp.' 
{Th. L.-Z. 31, pp. 702 ff.), Lips. 1906 ; J. Fischer, ' Die Bestimmung der 
i'B.' {JVei'defiauerSf.i, pp. 176-226), 1906; W.Zenker, '■T\\..\FastoralbL), 
1906 ; J. D. James, ' Authorship ot the Pastoral Epp.' {Church Quarterly 
Review), 1906-7; W. M. Ramsay, 'Hist. Com. on i Thw.'' {Expositor), 
1908-1 1 ; W. Liitgert, ' Die Irrlehrer der PB.' {Beitriige zur F, chr. Theol . 
ed. Schlatter, xiii. 3), Giitersl. 1909 ; W. M. Ramsay, ' Dr. Moffatt on the 
Lit. of the N.T.' {Expositor, viii. 7, pp. 77 f.), 191 1 ; H. B. Swete, ' The 
Faithful Sayii"tgs ' (/. of Theol. St. xviii. pp. 1-6), 1916 ; F. Torm, ' Die 
Sprache in den PB.' {Z.f. d. N.-T. W. xviii. iv, pp. 215-43), 19 18. 

CHURCH HISTORY, ETC 

J. A. W. Neander, Ch. History, Hamburg, 1832 f . ; W. O. Dietlein, 
Das Urchristenthum, pp. 153-271, Halle, 1845; C. C. J. Bunsen, 
Ignatius ... u. seine Zeit, pp. 173 ff., Hamburg, 1847; K. Wieseler, 
Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, Gottingen, 1848; J. A. B. Lutterbeck, 
Die N.T.lichen Lehrbegriffe, ii, pp. 31 ff., Mainz, 1852 ; W. J. Thiersch, 
Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter . . . Frankfurt u. Erlangen, 1852; J. P. 
Lange, Die Gesch. der Kirche, i. i. pp. 134 ff., ii. pp. 374 ff., Braunschweig, 
1853-4 ; F. C. Baur, Das Christenthum u. die christl. Kirche der ^ ersten 
Jhdte, p. 251 ff., Tiib. 1853; C. H. Weisse, Philosophische Dogmatik, i. 
p. 146 f.. Lips. 1855 ; J. J. I. V. DoUinger, Christenthum u. Kirche in der 
Zeit der Grundlegufig, Regensb. i860; J. C. M. h?LVixen\.,N.T.liche Studien, 
p. 104 f., Gotha, 1866; H. J. Yloiizm^nn, Judenthutn ti. Christenthum 
im Zeitalter der apokr. u. N.T.lichen Liieratur, p. 551 f., Lips. 1867; R. F. 
Grau, Entzvickehmgsgesch. des N.T.lichen Schriftthums, ii, p. 185 f., 208 f., 
Giitersl. 1871 ; E. Renan, D Ante'christ, pp. 100 ff., 186 f., Paris, 1873 ! 
R. Seyerlen, Entstehung u. erste Schicksale der Christengemeinde in Rom, 
pp. 26-48, Tubingen, 1874 ; K. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfiinge des catho- 
lischen Lehrbegriffs, pp. 32 ff., Strassb. 1874 ; A. Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre 
V. d. Rechtfertigung,&\.c., ii, p. 221, Bonn, 1874; W. Beyschlag, Die christl. 
Geineindeverfassimg im Zeitalter des N.T.s, pp. 485 f., Harlem, 1874; A. 
Immer, Theol. des NTs, pp. 382-99, Bern, 1877; H. Usener, Acta 
Timothei, 1877 ; D. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., pp. 92 f., 
161 ff.. Lips. 1878-9; J. E. Renan, DEglise Chre'tienne, vi, pp. 85 ff., Paris, 
1879 j E. Hatch, Organization of the early Christian Churches, pp. 44 f.. 



i84 APPENDIX III 

50 f., 83, 113, 136, London, 1880; E. Havet, Le Christianisme et ses 
Origines, iv, pp. 376-S2, Paris, 1884; O. Pfleiderer, Urchristenthmn, 
1887, E. Tr. iii, pp. 373-99, London, 1910 ; J. Heron, The Church of the 
Sub-Apostolic Age, p. 226, London, 1888 ; E. Loening, Die Ge??ieindeverf. 
des Urchris tent hum s,\). 69 f., Halle, 1888-9; ^^^- ^^- Ramsay, The Church 
in the Roman Empire before a. d. 770, pp. 246 ff., 365, 380, 416 (ed. 7)., 
London, 1893, ^^904^ ^- Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 19, 25, 340, 363 ff., 
London, 1893 ; J. Reville, Les Origines de PEpiscopat, i, pp. 262-356, 
Paris, 1894; F. Blass, Acta Apostoloru?n, pp. 21 ff., Gottingen, 1895 ; H. 
Lesetre, La Sainte Eglise au siecle des Apotres, pp. 383 ff., 393 ff., 409 ff., 
Paris, 1896; A. Harnack, Chronol. der altchristlichen Litter atur, i, pp. 
480 ff.. Lips. 1897 ; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 399-414, Edinb. 
1897 ; F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, xi, pp. 17 1-2 17, London, 
1898; M. Friedlander, Der vorchristliche jiidische Gnosticismus, pp. 97 ff., 
Gottingen, 1898 ; J. V. Bartlet, Apostolic Age, pp.- 178-84, 192 ff., 198- 
202,511-15, Edinb. 1899, '-'1907; E. P. GoM\di, Biblical Theol. of the I^. T. 
V. ii, pp. 142 ff., London and N. York, 1900; J. W. Falconer, Fro/n 
Apostle to Priest, iv, pp. 109-42, Edinb. 1900; G. T. Purves, Apostolic 
Age, pp. 169-76, London, 1900; H. St. J. Thackeray, Relation of S. Paul 
to Contemp. Jewish Thought, pp. 55, 194, 215, 240, London, 1900; E. 
V. Dobschiitz, Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, pp. 9, 177 ff., 207 ff, 
Lips. 1902 ; E. C. Moore, The N. T in the Christian Church, pp. 47 ff., 
N. York, 1904 ; R. Knopf, Nachapostolische Zeitalter, pp. 196 ff., 300 ff., 
Tiibingen, 1905 ; C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., pp. 210 f., 
Edinb. 1907; P. Peine, Theol. des N.T.s, pp. 538-49, Lips. 1910. 



APPENDIX IV 

TEXT OF 1 & 2 TIMOTHY AND TITUS 

1. Words which do not occur in the ten Paulines are 
printed in red 

2 ' Hapax Legomena ' are marked with an asterisk 

3. Words which occur, in Paul, only as part of quotations 

from the LXX are marked f 

4. Pauline phrases are underlined 

5. The genuine notes are written in uncials. 



nPOE TIMOGEON A 

1 I fiAYAQl anoCTToXog XpigToG '\r\oou KaT'6niTay(]v aCor i.i^ Epbi.i, Col i.i 

Qeou (7a>Tr)pog n/j-cuv Ka^ XpiaToO Irjaou rfj^ tXniSoj i]jiicov Ro xvi56. Co/i.27 
a TifioQ&g) ys/qaiu) tIkvco 6v ni"aT6i • ygpig^ £A€Of, ^V']'*^'? iCoriV.r^^Ppij.ip.aa, Gai/.20 
ocno 0eou narpo^ Kat XpicrTOu '/(7aoD Tot) Kupiou r)\i(hM. Ro I.7 etc., 14,71.23 etc. 

3 Ka^6o$ napeKccAeca ae npoa|j.6rvo(i 6v'£4*£^y riopeuo-^cxviii.iS^xx.i.iCorxvi.? 
^6V0f etf MttKcSov^av, Tva napayyeiApi" t/j-/ /i/7*eTepoSf- zLor'i.iteU. 

4 SaaKCxAeTv, ptrjSe npoafex^'v \iu^o\q Ka';*yevgaXoyiai$'*dn£- 
pavroif, a»Tiv£^ *eK^r7Tr]cr€iS' nape^ocic; piaAAov f) omovo- Col i.25 

5 P-'O^v Qeou T/7V Iv nfarei, — to Se r eXo^ rf]^ napcayYeXicts CtAii. 20, Ro vi.az 
eoT*iv ocyocnr] e.K Ka6(xpocs KapS/<x^ Kai auveiSrjaeto^ ayafi% Rov.5,vi.i7 

6 Koc") ni'oTfecoc avunoKpiTX)(j* cLv Tjv€j*daToxnaocvref e^eTpd- 

7 nrjaav et^^fiaTaioAoyrav^ OfeAovrgs- givg/ vo|j.o SiSdaKaAoi; Gaiv.21 
jLifj vooGvTfej fiOTfe a AeyoucTi y^qre ntp) rivcuv * Siocf^e- 

3 |3a/ouvrai. oT^ajixev 56 O Ti KgXof 6 vo/joc 6av T>f gma Ro ii/.ig. vii'.^.i6 
9 *vO|j./)xa>s ^(pf^Tcxi felScog TOUTo, OTi SiKA^q? vo/aos oa Kerroci, Epbv5, Phm 21 

avofxoi^ Se Kai dvunoTOfKroig, oore/Becri Koi ocp-ocpTooXoig^ 

dvoa/ois koj Pe/irjAoigj^naTpaAojaig »<oc/*/^r|rpaAaiaif*dv5po- 
10 (|)dvo(^j nopvoig, (xpor€VOKO/Vai5,*dvSpanoSiaTaTs'^ t|''^^<^''"'^'S, 

*€niopKO/g^ KOI 6*/ Ti fcTfepo v ip\ L/yiaivouar] SiSotdKaA/a ocvr/'- Ro xiii.9 
n Keirai, Kar a to feugyyiXiov r/^g $0^/7^ Tou ^tgKQcpiou Qgoi^Ro ii i6,xvf.25,i.i.2ConV4 
la o emareudrjv eyco. Xgpiv exto To!)'^£v5uva;xcu- Gati.7 Ppivi^ 

gavTi /i.6 Xpiary ""Irjcsou Tcb Kupfy HP*-^^ . ^ <^''''' niCTov ^e Ro v(.23,Epbiii)j.iCorvii.23 

13 r^yqacxjo, BayLevoQ ctg o/aKQViav. to npoT£pov 6VTor^Ado--2Corv.[9,iCorxyi.i5,G-aiv.i3 
<pr]iJ.ov Koc'i ^SicoKTrjv ko/ ufipiarqvaXk' qX^rjBriv 6t/ dyvoojv &ai.i3,iCorxv.9,2Coriv.i 

14 enoiqcra cv anioTia, ^ unep en Aeovao-e ($€ ?7J(api$ rou Ku- Rov.2Qj.,xvi .20, 2 Cor 1^.15 
p;ou n/^djv pteToc nCo-Teg^g ko/ dyanf^g t% iv Xpiarcp 'Iqaou. Epbvi.23,iTbv.if, Roi'ii(,39 

13 niffTOj: o Aoyog KOt/ naar^g^dnoSo^ns ot|/og, pVi XpiOTog aCori.iy, iCorxv.3 
Iqffous q AQev e/^ rdv Koa^iov a./xapTcuAoi>g crcocrarwv Rov.a/.ja 

r6 npdJTO^ £"ifxi tyw aKXa. Si a toOto >7A6 rf ^f^v, 7v o: ev ep-o i iCorAv.9,Roiv.i6,Epl3ii.4,7 
npcoToj fev5£i^<7TOci '}r)aou£ Xpicrros rqv anaaav /uctKpo6u - Ro ix.aa 
l^fau npo^ ^unoTuncoaiv tcuv p-tAXovTcov niOTeJe/vfnTaura Roix.33 
17 61^ ^a)/]v oc/qjviov . toj §6 [iacn\el tcov a1ajva)v, acfidapT cp^ Ro v.21, '23 ,20, );vi.25,27 



I.i7-]ll5 nPOE TIMOGEON A 

Roil?. Gai.5, Ppiv.ao aopaTo^, {jlovco Qe(h, Tifxfj Kgi 664^ eig Toug algjvag Ttov 

ai(jiSv/a)v gfxf^v. TauTf/v T/7V napayytAi'av n<xpa-i8 

iCoriv.17 r/Oepiaf ao/, TfeKVOv Ti/x66fe 6, Kara tos npooyouoas eoi 

2Corx.3/ ere npo4>r)T6j'a§, Tva arpaTeur) €v cxuToug t^v KaA/^y 

Roxiv.22,iCorxiii.2 arpare^av Ixajv n/griv Kai ayadrjv aavei'^r^a/v, ;7'v Tive^'crnoi-iQ 

l-R0xi.jfcit.Psxciv.14 adcfievo/ nep) Tf)v nfariy lvauayr/aava)v6arT]v'Y^€va<oc 20; 
iCorv.5 Ka) /^Afe^avSpog, ouf napeSa)koc t<£ Eocrava , iva m/Se<^<iooi 

|ir] pAaa(^/7/4€?v. 

Roxi(.ijiCoriv.i6,Epblui.F))i4 riapocKofAco o5v npa)Tov navTcpv noife?a6ai Sengei^, il 
Rof.8, Epbv.20 npocreux^c.^^evTcu^eig . \feuyapigT/ag , unep navrcov dv6p(unwv 

unep |3a<TiAea)v Ka) navrcov tcov ev vne^o)^ ovtlov, Iva 2, 
*r)pe|jiov Koi qCTu^iov /5iov*5iaytt)j^6v €v noccrrj e'jcre|Sei'st 
1 Cor vii.26, 2 Cor vii.ia,uii1.2i Koi *a6ftv6Tf)T I . TouTo KaAov k a) * anoScKTOv 6V(X)niQv tou 3 

GOijqpog r]ixa> v @eou, 09 navraj dvdpconouf deAei acofir}- 4. 
Ro iii.3o,v.i5, iCoruiii.6 vou Koi eig enfyvojaiv a:Ar]6ei'af lAOeFv. _6^ ydp Beog, eg hou 5 
Grai(i.i9f ^emrqq Qeou koi avdpconcov gy^pconog XpioTO^ 'IpCTOug, 

Gai.4,ii.2o 6 5oug £auTov '''dvTiAuTpov unep navrgjv, to ^aprupiov 6 

G-avi.9 KatpoT g fStoi g , 6«g o eriBgy ly<o Kfjpu^ Ka/ dnooToAog 7 

Roix.i,xi.r9 G-aii.ao ( dAn^eiav Aeyco, oo ijjguSo^a/) , SiSdaKaAof\|0v^71v 
2Corvif.i4,Coli.6 nigret Kg) ocAn^eia. BouAoptat ouv n£oon£U2^a6ai roug g 

iCorxi.4,i.a,2Cor/i.i4,r]hi. ggvSpag fev navTi Toncp, Inaipovrocg ocTioug x^^P^f X<^P'f 
ppii.14 opyns Ka i^SiqAoyia^ioO • coaaorcog yuvaTKag ev '''Ka 9 

TaaroAr) *Koo^ra) pierd *al5oos Ka/ acb4>po{ruvr]S KOOfteTv 
eacTOfg, p./) Iv^nXeyf^aai Ka/ XP*^^'V T papyotp/Vous rj 
iCopxi.13 inaTiTpoi noAuTcAeT, dAA' n£en€i_j<uva^^v enayyeA- 

Epbii.io Xoiievaiq*Qeooef^Biav^ S/' 6pya?v d:ya5a>v . yuv^ev 17 cru- 11 

jCorMv.34f X''^? J:tav6avfeTa> ev ndcr// unoray/). SiSdaKOv 5e yuvaiK/ 12 

ouK eniTpeno j, ouSe *au86VT€Tv dv5pof, dAA'eTvai ev qau- 
R0V.14, iCorxi.8 X'?- 'A8dp ydp nptoTOg enAaadr), eTra Eua- Kai ASom- }3 
aCorxi.3 OUK i7naT/76r), /^ Sfi yuvq etanocTQfieTaa e'v napapdoei ye'yo- 

iCoriii.i5,vii.8 vfe- aco^ngera/ 5e 5ig Tf]g'^TfeKvoyov/as, edv ueivcogiv ev 15 

2.Tb ii.13 niffTei Kai dydnn Kai dyiagMto tieid <rQ>4)poouvn$. niam 

oAoyof, Ef'rig eniOKonng opeyerai, KaAou 6p-U| 

you IniOu^eT. Set ouv tov lni'aKonov*dveni''Ann"''o^ e^vai, 2 
piag yuva/Koj dv6pa,*vn4>«^'OV,*o-a)(j)povof,»KOaMiov, <)>»A6- 
ievov, *5i8aKTiKov • |x»7*norpoiv/ov, pr] *nAr7KTqv,o:AA'eniciKf), 3 
*aMarxov, d<:|>iAdtpyupovTou i5/ou ofKou KaAoJs npoTaTafi6vcv,4 
T6Kva e'xovTa Iv unorayrj perd ndfff]g*oc>^voT-nT05 (ei 5e 5 

* SiaXoyiapicov W.H. 



10; 



nPOE TlMOeEON A fcivs 

Tif Tou ISi'ou oiKou npooTqvai ouK of Be, nSg enKKqaicxg iCorxi.2a€te. 

6 QeoO eni|^6Ano6Tai-.) \xf) »vfeo<|>uTo»/. I'va P^n * Tu4>a>6fei£ ^h iCorxi.34 

7 Kp?fa.a 4|xnecrn tou 5ia|36Xoo. h&t 6e Kal pLoprupi'av KaAi7v 
e'xeiv dno tcuv e^coOev, Vva j-iQ €rg*6veiSianov Ij-tnearj Kai 'fRoxv.3cifc Ps (xia.io 

8 ^nayi'Soc roG diafiSXou . SiaKovouj cbaaurcDj ac/ivoup^ -i^Roxi.9citPslx(x.23 
*5iAoyous, MH oTvcp noAAy npoaexovrag, |jin*a)<7xpOK6p5fe?$, 

9 e'xovTaj to j^uarnpiov rqs niareios Iv KaOapa auveiSf7(ye). 
10 Kai ouToi 5e SoKipia^fe'adtocrav np&rov, tTra 5>aKOV6iTcoaav iCorxvi.3, aCorviiiraa 
n avi\KXqToi o'vTej. yuvaTKOf coaaurtof aepLvaf, )juj*5ia^o- 

12 Aou5,*vfj<^crArouc,niaTd5 6v naai . Sicxkovoi eorcoaav 
P-iaS" yuva/Kog av5p€$ , TfeKvwv KaAa>f npoVora^evo/ kqj tov 

13 i5;'a)v o/koiv. 01 ydp koAco^ SiaKov/yaavnrej^jSadfjoy eauroTif 
KcxAov neptnoioDvrof^ Kar noXA^v nappnaigv 6v ni'gTei rr) Pbm 8, Graii.20, Col i.4 

14 6v XpioTo) 'lr]aoG. fapTd croi vpd(4>co eAni- aCorxiii.ioetc. 

15 _^6ov feASfeTv npog gfe €V rayei - edv Se |3pa5uvcu), "va elSr^g Ro xv.aa,a4, xvi.ao 
nudQ Set £v o^KOi 0eou dvaarp64)6Gr6(X/, grig ecrriv eKKAfjgta Col lv.6. iCorxv.getc. 

16 Qeou ^gjvTOc. gruAoc Kal*6$pgi'o)ua T>?c dArjdeia^. Kai Ro(x.26etc. 
*d^oAoyoupi6va)9 Meya earl to t qc 66crefife«ac M-^gTnpiov Epb v.3a 

o? e4'av6p6D6>i Iv o-gpK/. Col i. 26, a Cor iv.n 

eSiKaicofirj ev nveu^aTi, 
I a)4>Q;7 dyytAoij, 

e Kf7pux 6n ev idvecriv , &a/i.2 

€niOTeo6/) ev Koafxo), 
dv6Ar]<|>flf) ev 5647. 
IV 1 To Se riveu/xa ♦pi)T(55 Aeye/, on iw uareporg KaipoTj ^ 

dnooTf]CTovTcx/' TivcQ Tj^f nfaTecog , npoci^ovTe?^ Jlveu/^iacn 
a nAavoi§ Kai SiSaanaAfocrg 5a/|^ovrcov, ev unoKpfaei *4;6uSo- 

3 ■Adya)v,*K6HauTr7piaa^(6vcov rqv i5('av (TuveiSqaiw, kcoAu- 
ovTcov ya/^e'v, dnex^crfiai ^pa)/iaTa>v, a 6 ©eoj eKjtaev elg 
*fi.6Td>\r74;/v ^lerd guxctpigTm^ To^g niaToTf kocj eneyvwKoa; Ppiv^ 

4 T17V dA.'766tav. oti ndv Kriafxa 0€oG kocAov^ko/ ou6ev*dn6- 

5 PArp'Ov., pt€Ta e6xo''PiaT\ai Aafij3o cvop.€vov • dy/d^sTa/ ydp cf.1C0rxi.a3 

6 5ioc Aoyou 0eoG koc'i ^evT&u^fe^S- TcxuTa unoTide^xe- Ro ix.6€tc.iP6t.i.2,3 
V05 roTs d5eA<^o?f KoAog ear) 5i(XKovog Xpi crroO 'IqaoO, . Coli.7 
*feVTp64)dpfeVos T0T9 \6\(o\q Tr]f niaTecos Ka/.Tos KaAr)^ 5)6a- 

7 aKoA/'ag r) napriKoAou6'r7Ka5 • T0U5 Se ^e^rjAoac Kai ♦'ypcrco- 
5ei$ |xu9ou5 napaiToG. yofivo^e Se aeauTov npog euoe/^eiai/- 

8 rj ydp auj/iaTiK/)**yu|jivao-)'anpdf oAfyov €aTiv*a>(|)6Ai^o5' 



JV8-VI5 n?OE TIMOGEON A 

r\ Se euoe^feia npof navra *oo4)fcAifids Iotiv, cnayyeX/av 
fe'xouaa l,wr]c, Tqq vuv kct'i iqc, jieXKouaq^ . n\orb; 6 Aoyof 9 
Coli.29 Kai ndcrrjg *ano5oxnS Of^'or- ^K toOto yap Koniajp tev 10 

2,Cor i.io. iTbi.9€tc. Ka"i aya)vi^d^J6 6a, on r) AniKa^fev ent Qeco Z^ajvri , 0^ 
Roi.i6,iii.226tc.Gravi.io eaii acoxqp navrcov/ avOptunoDv, p.aAiara niarcov. 

napdyyeAXe raura Ka) SfSaaKe. fxrjSei'^ aou rrjc veo-ji 
lTbi.7 TfjTO^ KaTacj)pov6i'Taj, dAAd Tuno^ yfv ou tcov niarcuv ev_ 

aCorvi.Sf., &aii.2o Aoygj, €v dvagTpo(j3Q^ ey dydcnr),fev ni'oTei, gv^ayveig ecof- 13 

Joxxi4a/.2Coriii.i4. Roxii? epxojjtai, npoaexe rr) dvayvojaei , Trj napaKAng6i,Trj Si5a- 

aKaAi'a . pir) orjjie'Ae/ tou evao) y^aprofjaTos-, eSoOrj aoi 14 
Sioc npo4>nT6ia^ fxerd eniOeaecuQ tS\/ xeipcov tou npea|3u- 
repiou. TaGra ^eAera, Iv rouToiq lad/, I'va aou n npo- 15 
Ppi.izf Konn <|)av£pa q ndgfv . eueye aeauroj Ka) Tr) SiScutkocAio. 16 

Roxii.ao Ini'^eve auroTg • touto ydp noicov Ka/ oeauTov acoaeis Kal 

Toug aKouovTcc^ aou. 

npecrfiurepo) jbirj^enfrrAn^riS, dAAoc napocKdAe/ cog na -iV 
T6pa , vecorepous 605 dSeA^souf, np6a|3uTep£xg dof ^f]Tepas, 2 
vecorepaj oag dSeA4)dg ev ndarj^dyveia. X'7P^5 Tijza rds 3 
ovrcof xnP^?- ^' ^^ ^'? XnP^ TeKva 17 *eKyo\/a6xei,^av6a-4 
vercocrav npturov tov i'6(OV oTkov 6UCT6|3eTv, Kal'djuoij^dj dno- 
Roxiv.22 Sidovai To75^*npoyovo(f touto ydp ecmv*dn656KTov6vconiov 

zCori.pf Tou 060(3  17 Se ovTa)^ xqpoc Kaj^pte/Aovcoiuevt] i^'AniKev em 5 

Epbvi.iS Qeov, Kg) npocrj^evei TgTs Seqaeoi Kai toc?^ npogeuya/f 

iTbiii.io vuKTog K«i77{iepag. ;] 5e crnaTaAcoaa Z,ab<ya reOv^Ke. 6 

Kal TauTa napdyyeAAe, Tva*dv6nrAr]nT0i (Laiv. el 5e rrf 7 
TOJV tSfcDv Ka") fidAioTa omerojv 06 npovoeT, t^v ni'aTiv 
r)pvr]Ta/ Ka^ eoTiv dnioTou X^'P'^v- XHP^'^'^^^'^'^^V^'*^^'^ 9 
jirj^eAaTTov erciav 6^nKovn"a yeyovuTa, evof dvSpo^ yt^W. 
Iv epyoig KaAo?^ ^apTupou/jievr), ei*6TeKvoTp6<|>tia6V, el 10 
*€^6Vo Sox r]aev, el dyi6ov n65aj eviil/ev, el fiAijBopievoie 
Coll. 10 *6nr7pKea6V, ei ncxvT) epya> dyaOo) enr^KoAou^noe. \/6cot6- 11 

pocs 5e xnpQ^S napafToD' oiav ydp^KaTaarpi^viaCTCoai tou 
XpicTOo, ya/JL6?v deAoucriv, e'x'^u*^'^' '<pV<^ o"''' ''"H^ np^Trjv 12 
Pbm 22 ni'aTiv qdiirjaav. apt« 6e koI d^yg) p-avBdvouci , nepi- 13 

2Coruii.7€tc. Gpxo/uevou Tag olKiag , ou \i6vov 54 apyoii, dAAd Ka>^ <i>Aocy>o( 

Kai nepiepyoi, AaAouaai xd p./) SeovTOf. |3ouAoMa' o5v 14 

aCor\/i.3,v.i2,xi.i2 vecoTepas ya^erv,*T6Kvoyov&?v,*otKo560'noT6T\/ fiti^e/iigy 

dc^opfiriv 5iS6vai to) dvTiKeifievo) \o\Sopiccz )(a.ptv ' q Si] ydp 15 



nPOE TIM Oe EON- A Vjs-Vlio 

ii> T)ve£ €4eTpanncrav 6nto(v tou Zarava. e'l riq niarg ex^' 
Xnpaf j^enapKeiTco auTalg , kou />if) papefado^ i] 6KKXr)cr( a* 

17 iW TaTj ovTcof xnP^'^*enapKear). Oi KaAci!)f 

npoccTTcoTeg npea^uTepo) (SinAfjs TiM-^g a^ioua^ujcrav, ^a- 

i8 Aicrxoc o) Konicovre^ IvAoyo) ko) 5iSagKa.Xfa. Aeyei yocp n Roix.iYctc. 

ypa^, BOYN ^Ao60NTA of 4)lM66cElC • Kai, 'A^ioc 6 epyai/i? iCor ix.9 cit.JDeut.xxv4 

:9 Toij yucBvu ccutou . Kara npeof^urepoo KaTfT/opi'ovLk x.7 

MT napaheYOU CKTog ei un en/ kvo H rpicoN MApTYpO^N: iCorx)V5.x\/.2.2Corxiii.i 1 
- ^K ^ /■ 7-^ ; TTt v- ^ — : — ^^. c/t.I)eat.xix.i5/ 

20 rovg a/aapTcxvovTccf evcontov navToiv eAeyye, iva kcxi 01 iTbiv.13 

21 Aoinoi 4)63ov e'xcoai . Sia^aprupofiai evconiov toO ©eoO sCoruii.iz 
Kai XpiOTOu 'Incrou KCXI tcov eKAeKTtov dyye'Acov, Vi/a raOra 
4>uAa4r?C X^P'f *fipo'<P'Vo^''''^5 p.r)5€v noicBv Kara^npocr- 

' 22 kAictiv. X^V^^C Taxea)g fzrjSevi eniTi'deij j-tq^^ Koivcuvei 

23 dfxapTiaij dAAoTpi'ais • oeauTov dyvov Trjpei. ^rIKeTl*u5po- 
^OT6l, dAX' oivco oAfyo) xP^ Sid Tov * cTo/iaxov Kai xdf 

24 nuKva^ (Jou dadeveiaj. tivcov dvQpconcov ocl df^apriai 
npoSrjAoi' eiai, npodyoucnoti ^I's Kpiaiv, nai Se Koti ena- 

25 KoAouOouaiv. chaaurcDQ Kal toc e'pya rd KaAd np68/jAa/ou 
I rd *d'AAa)S e'xovra Kpu|3r7Voci ou Suvarai. 

VI 1 "Oaoi tiaiv uno Cuyov SouAoi rouQ 'ih'iouQ Seanorag ndcrn? ti- 

yLpjg ai'ioug qyeiadcoaav, iW fxrj to owojia ToO Qeou Kai (7 5/- Roii.24 cit. Isa.lii.s 

~ 2 SaaKgA/g /3 Aaa(j)f7Mn"'"g-'- oi 5e niaroug exovreg Seanorag 

|j.r) KaracJjpovefTcocTav, on dSeXc^o/ e?aiv • dAAd /adAAov Pbm 16 
6ouAeueTa)aav, on mOTOt eiai ko.) ayanriro] o'l rrjj euep- 
yeaias avTiAafi|3avopi6voi. 

, 3 TauTa SiSacKe kocj napaKoAe?. €i'nf*6Tepo5i5aoKaAe7, 

Kai jj.r] npoaepx£Ta/ uyiaivouai Adyois, toij tou Kupiou Rov.ietc. 
rpiais/ '\qcrou Xpiarou, kcci t^ koct' euae/Beiau Si&aaKaAi'a, 
4. *T6TU(C))a)Tai, firj^fev enicrrd^evog, dAAd*voCTcovnep'i^i7Ti7Jei? 

I- Koi *AoyOM-q.xi'ag , ej (By yiverai cpdovog , e'pig , 3Atig4>nM-''ot.' > Ro i.i8.28f 
5 *undvoiai novnpcu', *8ignapaTpif3aj ^ie<j)6apMev' ^.du0p6L>ncov 
Tov vouv Koi dnec5-Tepi7fi6va)v Tr\g dAq^eiocs, vopii^ovTcuv *no- 

6 piofiov eivai tqv euoefBeioLv. eoTi Se^^nopio^oc M^Y^f <? 

7 euaepeia ^leTtt auTapneio^-ouSev ydp eafjVfeyKa/jev el^jrov Ro v.12 

8 Kog^(ov, 6t( ou8e e^eveyH6?v Ti Suvd^efia- exovTcj- Se^S^ioc- 
>_ 10 Tpo(|)ds Kocl *aKendajiocTa TouTOij dpK6aSqc7op(feOa. 01 84 

/JouAopAvoi nAouTeTv e^inrnTouaiv eij^ neipqorpidv Kan'^na-- 
yi'5a Koc"i iniBuyLicL; noAXa$ as/oqjoug Kai*I^Xafiepa.g^aiiTiv6g 



Vl9-ai nPOE TIMOGEON A 

iCorv.5 |3u6/^ouai Tous av9pconous eig 6Ae9pov Kai ocnaiAeiav. p/^a lo 

yap navTcov tcuv KaKCOv sotiv q *<|))Aapyupia n? tiv6? ope- 
yojifevoi anenXa\jqdqaa\j omo rqq niarecDc, Kai eaurou? 
Roxi.i7ttc. ix.206tc. ♦nepie'nerpav oSuvocjg noAAocTg. lu Se , a) av- n 

lCorv/i.i3,x.i4 Rok.30 dpcone ©eoO, Taura 4)€uye ' S^coKe Se 8it<aioauvnv, euae- 

iCorxiv.i, Jx.25 Peiav, niajiv , dyccnf^v, unopLOvnv,»npauna06iau, dya)vi4ou 12, 

Roii.7,Ppi.30 Tov KaAov dycova Tps nfajeajs, eniAg/^oOTng (xlcovfou ^a)% . 

Col iii.15 elg n^ 6KAf]6og, Kal copioAoyQaag rqv kcAqv ofxoAoyi'av evco- 

aCoruii.izetc. niov noAAcBv ptaprupcuv. nocpayyeAAcu got evopmov TpO 13 

Epb i. 11,23 0€oO ToG 4cooypvo GvTOg toc navra koi XpiaroO ■"Iqcrou rou 

fiapTupnaavTOc em flovrfou HiAdTOU ri^y KaA.pv op-oAoyi'av, 
lCoruii.i9 THprjag i' ere Tf7v 6VToAr[V ganiAox/. *ct\/6n<AqnTov;. M^fcXP' H 

Rov.iett. THf eni4)averaf toO Kupfdu fjpLcuK/ 'IqcjoO Xpiarou • i^v Kai- 15 

Gaui.9 poig tSi'oi g Sei'46i o fxaKocpfOf Kai jjlovos Suvaari]?, 6 /3aai- 

Aeus TGOv |3aaiAeu6vT6L>v Koi Kupios tcov KupieuovTOJv, 6 i6 
|i6vo^ I'xtov ddavab-fav, (^cof oIkcov ♦dopoaiTOv, 6V etSev ou- 
8ei£ ocv6pa)ncL)v ou6e i5e?v Suvajai , a> Ti[iri Koi Kparof 
atojviov . d|jj]V. 

70?$ nAouai'oij ev rep vuv alcovi napdcyyeAAe jj.r\ *ui\}ri- 17 
Ao4)pove%p-nSe qAniKevai em nAourou *d5rjAoTrjTi, otAA' 
€m Seu> TCP napexovT/ qyjw navra nAouai'oog eis dnoAao- 
CTiv dyaOoepyeTv, nAouTeTv €v epyoig KaAo?§^ * eu^j^.^raSo' i& 
TOu^eTvai, ♦HoivcoviKoujj + anoOrjaaupi'^ovTajeauToTg 19 
Lkxiii.9 SepieAiov KaAov eig to fisAAov, iva eniAajBcuvrai Tfjf ov- 

'^Q T/^oBee, rrjv *napa6nK0\/(j>uXa|ov, iKTpeno/jevojao 
rdj p6|3nAou5 ♦K€Vo4>a)vl'a§K0Li * dvT/Oeaeis rq^ *ij/6u5a3- 
vu^ou yvcoaeoDC, n'v r/vej enayyeAAojuevoi nep) rrjv rrfo-- 2,1 
Tiv * f}aTQ){qacn\/ . 



nPOZ TIMOOEON B 

I I HAYAQI AnOETOAOI yP/ITOY fHIQY 5tg eeXnucb aCorii.EpbU 

2 Toc Qeou KgT* engyyeAigv ^ojQg rrjig ev Xpiaro) 'Ir^croD TT^d^* ^3. W zg, Ro viii .2,39 
QEgi ArAnHTfll reKv u) • XAPII. EAEOL, EIPHNH APO QEOY I Cor iv.17, i .af etc 
nATPQZ KAI^'KYPIOY IHZOY XPIZTOY . 

3 Xgpiv fex^J TCP ©€60, (S Aarpeuo) ano *-npoy6v(dv€y ko- Ro'-8^.,vi.i7. iCIfemvlv./ 
Gapoc auvetSrjaet, cog dSca Aeinr ov ey co Tf)v nepJ crou ^vfcfav J Tb 111.6,10 

4 fev Ta?g Setjaegi' ijiou. vuktoc Ka/ n/J-epgg Inino^fiov ere ISeiy, 

5 fiefxvQfxIvog cjou Tcov 5aKp6ajv, Vva yap« c nAr^pa), 6c5'<>no^v<}- P|) ii.x 
0-,y Xa^fov THS €v coi dvunoKp(Tou niaTetoj, 17x15 evcoKf^at 
nptoTov evT^ *fxdp^ri ctduAcui^i kqi rr] p-nTpf aou EuveiVrj, 

6 ncnciatiat 56 oti kcu €v ao«'. Si' /7V airiav AvapLi^vnaKco Ro xv.14. 
i7€ ••dvcf^AjnupcTv TO ygpigpia toO @£oD, eoriv ev(yo/5(a iCiemxxvilj Rovi.23 

7 TilC InjOccrecJf Tcov )(6ip,a5v ^ot). ou yap € 5a3K£v ?7|iTv 6 Qeog AcvIhiS. Roviii.i5^xi.s,xvi3 
nveu^g ^»S£tA fac» aAXa duvajj.ea)^' Ka) aydnr)^ Koc) ♦orcj4>po 

8 via^-ow* K*? ^'^^ enataxuvd/f^ to }^apTup<ov tou Kup/ou iCori.^f. 
j^fjicov, fi-r^Se ey-e rov Be<T^itov <xutou ' dAAa *cruyKaKona6»)aov Epb'ili.i jPfcn.i,^ 

9 TO) euayyaXiLo kctoc Buvaixi^/ Qeou tou au)aa.\/Tog qjia^Kcxi Epl7iii.go,Roi.i6,iCori.gi}. 
KttAeggcv Toc KAncret otyia, ^ Kara roc Ipyg n^cOv. ocAAaKigf G-a.i.6.iCQrvii.2o, ftoixji 
ISi'oy . npoOeoiv k.«) ) ^)v t>7v So9€?qav i^/i/V ev Xptgro) Epbi.ii, &aii.9. Roxii.sf 

TO '\r)aou npb yp6va 3v atcovjujv ^aveptoQergav 54 vGv <Sia Tpg Roxvi.ajf 

en/<j>av€/a5 tou acoT/7pog npicuv XpioroO 'Iqaou , Kocrapy i^- Ppiii.20 

ggvTOg |aev Tov OavotTov (jjjcuri'aavToj Se ^a)/]v KOfl o«|)flcX|0- iCorxv.a6. Roii.7 

11 aioiv 5ia TOU euayyeAmu , eig o eredqv €.ya> KJ^py^Kai dno- 1C0riv.15.xii.98 iPeIi.8 

12 axoAo^ Ka^ 5i5dcrKaAc§. 5»' 17V aiTfocv Kcct Taura r\d<J)(CD- lP6ii.6,20 
dAV ouK InaioxuvoM-gt-. ^Sa_\/ap a> nenfgTeuKoc , Kog ne- Pp i.20, Ro i.)6,xiv.i4 . 
neiap-on oti 6uvaToj Igri T/7V * no(padi7K>^v ^j-ou (puXcc^at Roiv.2i,xi.23 

t3 efg eKe\yr)v Ti)v qixepoLv. *utiQ7on(jiQ\\f eye oyiajvovrwv !iTbi.io cit Isii.ii 

Aoyojv, cov nap* e\xov ^kouooc^ , ev nTaTei Ka/ dydnr; tt) £v Roxi.27,iTl7iii3,Ppiv9,Ga.ii.2o 
1 14 ApigTO) '/naoO .  T^v kocA/^v ^napttBnK/iV ^uXaiov Sio. Roviiijp 

15 Dveu/aocTog Ayrou toO Ivoikouvto^ 6v n/JTv . OTiSac Rov.5,viii.u 
TouTo, ontdnecTrpdccljf^croc.v /u.e ndvT€s 01 ev Tr\ 'Aaiq.- cDv tRoxi.26. xCori 3 
eoTs ^PuyeKog kcxj *Epp.oy6vr)g . 

16 AOIH EAEOE KYPIOE Til) 0NHII4>0P0Y OIKHI ' OTI 

nOAAAKIE ME *ane4jyhe;kai THN AAYEIN MOY OYK 

17 EnHIZXYNOH, A AAA rENOMENOH EN PilMHI EnOYAA/OZ 

18 EZHTHIE ME KAI EYRE ( AHIH AYTHI KYPIOE EYPEIM 
EAEOE nAPA KYPIOYENEKFINHITHI HMEPAl)' KAI OEA EN aTbi.io cit Is ii.ii 
E«I>£EDI AIHKONHEE, * BEAT/ ON Pf T/NOEKEir. 

ll Eu ouv, T€Kvov jxou, evSuvafxou ev Tr) yap'Ti Tr] ev Epbvi.io,2Corvi'iii9,iCori4 

a. so W.H.m. 



]h-zz TTPOE TIIAOGEON B 

Ppiv.9, l?o xt.27 Xpicrry 'Iqaou . Ka) a qKouags nap' 4jaou 5ia noAAiov jaapru- 2 

J Clem xliv.i-6,lxii.3,lxiii.3 pcov, raOra napaQov niarolc, avOp^noig, oTnve^ iKavol 

€O0\/Tai Ka) eripoug SiSoc^of. *<JuyKaKona6r/(Tov d)£ KoAof 3 
J Cor ix. 7-10,14, 23 jTparicoTrig XpiffTOu '/r)aou. ouSe^c crrpaTeuofievof I (inA6K6- 4 

Taj TaTf ToO fi'{ou*rtpayyiaTeia{(;, iva Tai^oTpaToAoyncravT/ a- 
pear/, eav Se Kai *a6Ar) tij, ou aT64)avo0ra< lav jiri"*vo(ii'- 5 
\jiCO^* aBXqar)^ Tov Konicuvra yecopyov 5el npturov rcciv 6 
Kocpnoiv fi.€TaAaf^(3av6(v. voe/ Aeyto- Sc^aei yap (joi 7 
6 Kupioj ouveaiv Iv nacri . pLvrj^oveue ' l>7aouv Xpiarov 9 
Ro ;V.24, i.3_f eygyepix evov 6K vfeKpcov eK anep/jiaTog A a/3) 5 Kocra to 

/?o (i.]6. XV/.25 euayy6Aiov j^ou • Iv cp KcxKonaduj M-^XP' S6cr^6ov 9 

Pp 1.12-18, Co/ iv.3 60$ KaKoOpyos, aAA' o Aoyog toO ©eou ou &e Serai, 
xCoriv.i^lCorm.j 81a toDto navra unoyLcv cb 5ia tou$ 6KAeKTouf, I'va Kai 10 
PpizS, Ro vii(.35) auro'i acvrqp'iag ruy^CDcri rgc; ew Xpiaro) 'Iqaou ixera 
Rovi.8, 2Cor\Jit2 86t,qg aicoviou. niaro^ XoyoQ • et yap guvanedg - li 

J Cor IV. 8 J Rouiii.17 yoij.ev, koci 0-u^rjaojj.fev €/ unofxevo^iev , Ka/ aujJLJiaai - 12 
Matt.x33 _Aeuoo/££v • el dpvnuopteOa, KocKeTvo^ ctpv/fcrera/ 7]/iC(r 

Ro ii(.3/ 61 aniarou/xev, eKfeTvo^ niaro^ /ue've/ " a:pvn(Ta<j6o(» 13 

yap eauTov ou Suvaroci . Taura uno(xr|ivr)<TK€, 14 

2 Cor vi(7. 21 <5ia/LiapTup6/^£vo^ evconiov too Kupfou /j.r) *AoyO|^ay67v • 

€n' ouSev *Ypr)<7)^ov ^n) *KaraaTpo<^f) tojv dKoudvrmv. 
Ro vi i3^xiv.i8 crnouSaaov aeaurov Sok//j.ov no(pagT)7a a/ too 6>6y, epya- J5 

Ephi. 13 Tf7v *av6narax'^'^"''ov, * 6p6oTop.oO vra tov Aoyov t/;^ 

o^hr)ddag . Taq 81 [^e/BffAou^ *K€voc|)ajvraf nepifdrao-o' j6 
AC1V17 en'i nAdFov yap npoKo^ouaiv cuae^ela^, koCi 6 X6yo£ rj 

auroov oy^ *yayypa(va voyiqv i'isr tSv eoTivY^evaiog 
Koc) H^iAqTog^ o'lTiveg nepi lijv dcArj^e/av * j^aro^rjaav/, Xe- i2 
yovrtg Trjv dvaaraa/v ^'^ry yeyoveva/^ Koc/ avarpenouOT 
Tfjv T)va)v niVriv. 6 ixevToi arepeog de^eXiOQ rod 19 

Niimh. xv(.5,a6j^ ©feou €aT>7Kfcv, I'^^o^v rrjv acjipay'iSa Taurrjv, "Lfi^co 

Kypioc Toyc ontac <i^Y'''°Y, '<a/ 'Anoarr^Tco dno aSiKicug 
Ro X 13 tit Isxxvi.jg n^c 6 oNOMi>za)N TO 0N0M3> Kypioy, 6v pLeydXr) 8e 20 

o/Kfa ouK £OT( jLAovov QKeuA] ypuOTOc Ka/ dpyupa, aAAa 
iCorhsj, Roh.%1 Ka) ^tJAivoc Ka/ oaTpaKJVOc . ko) a p.kv c\g iip.r\v, a ^e e'g 
jCorv.7 aripjgy . cclv guv Tif eKKaSdpf) eauTov drro TOUTa)v, earai 21 

ffK£uo^ 6l.c Tijigv , r]yiaaiJ.evov , e6)[pqaro'^ icp Sfeo-norr], 
zCor h.2 eg- nav epyov ocya^ov r}TOijj.a(JiJ.€V0V, rag Se 22 

Ro ix 30^ xiV.i^ *v660T6p/Kag eniBup-iag (peuye, S/a3Ke 6£ ^iKa>0Jvv/?y 



nPOI TIMOOEON B jj«-jji.i6 

nfoTiv, ayanryv, eipriv^v, )i.6Ta tc3v 6niKaXou)ji.feva)v tov Ku- iCor xiv.i. i.z ; 

23 piov eV KaBapdg Kapbia^ . ra^ 6e p-copaj* Ka'( * dnar- ] 
SevTOu^ ^qTqaag, napa/Tou, etStuj on yevvoxr/ p.axaj- j 

24 5oCAov 5e Kupi'ou ou Se? )j,ax€CT^a/, ochX' ^niov eTvai iCorvii.i2 ! 

25 npof navraf, *SioaKT(Kov/, ^ave^TKocKov, €v npaoTfjTi j 
naiSeuovra touj *dvTi5iaT(66/u.€vou5* f^i^nore Scur) ! 

26 aoroTf 6 ©€os fierctvoiav c'lg eni'yvcoaiv dArj^eia^, Kai 
*dcv/avf7^(i)0iv ^K THS tou 8ia(ioXou'^'n(xyi5o£ il^iidypr]- i"Roxi 9 citPslxix.23 
|j.€vor un' auroO eJ? to eKe^vou bihrf\xa. 

]il I TouTO Sg ytVcoaKfe, on ev laxaTa/f r^^epat^ iwarq- Rovi.6. Isii.x 

2 aovra/ Kaipo) ^aAenoT. eaovrai yap 61 avSpmnoi* (pi Kau- 

To», 4)/Aapyupo/, aAg^ovg;, un fcp)'74>avoi ,/3Adg(t>/?fiQ/>yQ^r Ro 1.30/ 

3 g<v anei^ferc. dygpigrot. *dvd(7)Q/. ocoTQpvo(, *agnov^oi.*5>q- 

4 (3oAo/,*dKpaTfcTg, *Qrvf7/Li€po(, * d4>;AayaOo/, npoSora/, npo- 

ner€?$, *TfeTu<f)cofx6^/o;, * (^s/A/fSovoi ^dAAov 9 *<|>;Ad6feOi, • 

5 6Xo^"rfeS" pL6p<^a>giv 6ua6/36f'a5 Tf^v Be Buvapnv auri]^ ^P^O' ^'^'^^'^ \ 

6 fj.6v/oi' Kcr'i TouTouy * anorp^nou. €k toutojv ydp eicnv 
or *6v6uvovr6g clj rdf otKi'a^ Ka^ ocJ^d^aAcoTi'^ovTef *yu- 

v«(Kdp/a '■ce<7a)p6u^€vaf dp-apnaij, dyopeva enidujiifai^ "I"Roxii.20 ot.Prov.xxv.aa 

7 noiKTAaig, ndvTort /^av6d:vovTa kou *p.qSenor6 &k en/- j 

8 yvcoaiv aAqdeia^ eAOen/ Su^dpLeva. ov rponov 5e 'lavvrjf ' 
Ka] 'loiiJifhpqq ocvriaTqaav Mojijcrei^ ouVco^ Ka) ouro/ dv0/'- j 
aravrai Tr} OiXqBeiq , a.v6p(vno\ *KaTe(p9app.€\/oi Tov \/ouv^Ro].z2 I 

9 d5oK//^oi rrepl ti^v ni'ar/u. dAA' ou npoKOipouaiv eni nAeTov 

/7 yap avoia o-UT(X)v*lK5r]Xo£ €arai ndcr/v, iV£ Ka/ /] €K€f- 1 

vcov lyeveTO. I 

10 lY AE nAPHKOAOYOHIAI MOV TH/ AIAAIKAAWI, THI ' 
*ArarHI, TKI nPOeEIEI^THI niHTEl, THI MAKPOeVMIAf^THI 2Corui.4-7 ' 

11 /ArAOHl, TH/ YnO/MONHI,TOir A/OrMO(E,TOIZ: nAeHMA^;N,-OlA 

MO/ErCNErO ENANTIOXEIAf.EN IKONIQI, EN AYETPOII, 0/OYZ Z\l/ir- Ac xi/i.i4.44-52.xiv.j/ 
MOYI YnHNEEKA, KA( £K R/KNTCIN ME EPP'dATO KYPIOI. 2 Cor i. 10 

12 hdi ndvTeg ^e 01 6£AovTfe;*6ua6/3aj.c 4nv^ £v Xpigro) 'li7gou Ro vii(.39 etc 

13 SiaJx^^ffovTai. nov^poi 56 gyOpconoi Kai*y6rjTfeg npoKoij/ou- 2Tf)ii/".2 

14 criv 6m TO x^^pov, nAavcovT€9 kcx) nAavcO/^evo;, ctu Se /neve iv i 
J5 oTf efxadeg Ka) *en\aTco9q£, €/5a)f napa t/Vcuv/ ep-aQeg, Koi \ 

OTi dno (ipi(pou£ 'lepa ypapixara oiSag ra Suvaf^fevci oe ao<^/'- 
j6 ggi €:'!£ ouiTqpiav 81a niorecoQ TfJ£ Jm XpigroJ 'Iqaou . naaa iPe 15, Roi.i6,/(i.22, viii.39 j 
ypa(p rj ^QeonveuoTo^ Kai *cu4>6Ai^og npog 5iSaaKaA/av npof R0XV4 



IIIrt-]Vi5 npOZ T/MOGEON B 

Epb iv.74,vf4 ^cAeyjioy, npos *€nav6pdwaiv, npor naiS^tdv jfjv jv $iKQ/o<riJ- ly 

^Corix.8 Vf) (Va *(i'pr/o$ 5 toO <B>€oO avdpconof^ rtpoj nav gpyoy 

&ai20€tc z:ilAMAPTYPOH>^f ENflniQM TOY eEOY KAI XPIirCY r ]V 

'IHIOY TOY MEAAO/vJTOr KPINE/N ZQNTAZ KAI NEKPOYI- 
KA) THN En/4>ANaAM AYTOY KAI THN BAIIAElAN AYT<5>;^ 
KHPYSON TON AOrON, ERIITHe/ EYKAIPHE *AkAIPni, ^ 

CoJijr, iiCorvi6 eAe^ov, eniTrjarjcrov^ napakOfAeaov^ ev noccr) fA.aKpoBuixi<x 

lCorxiv.6 Kot SiSo c;^?}. 

eVroti yolp Kftipog 0T6 7% uyio(;vou<ros St8<xaKaX/o($ ouk 3 

EpbiVx^. ai/e^ovrai^ aAAa Kara rag GniBuiJ.iO(.g Tocg iSmg eauTO?^ 

*6n<aa>peuooua) SiSa ctk aAooj *itKv 17 do^^voi r/)v aKor^v/,K'a^ 4. 

■{•Ro xi.26citls./»x.ao ano /J-Gv Tns aAr)6efc(s t/^v dKO»jvtanoa-Tp€i/;oU(7(v, em Se 
roug \xudou£ eHrpanqaovTOLi. 

Ppivu Ep/Jiv.i/J cu Sk vf)<|>€ gv riCTgf, KOfKona^qo-ou, EPFON UOIHLON 5 

Roxi.i3,Col 1V17 EYArrEAIZTOY; THN AlAKONIAN lOY * nAMPO<^0PHlON. Em. 6 

Ppiii.a,ii.J7,i.23 TAP HAH inENAOI^JAi^ KAI KA/POI THZ EMHI *ANAAY- 

ppi.30 reaE £4>£iTHKE. ton ahina toai kaa on HrnNiiMAi, 7 

Ppii.r6,Acxx.24,Epl7,v3fTON APOMON; T£T£AEKA, THM nilT/N T£THPHKA" AO/RON & 
Coli.5,iCor.ix.?4f,Pp..i^.i AnOKEITAI MOI THI AIKAIOIYNHZ: ITE^pANOZ! , OW AnO- 
Ppn..i4. AOrEl MOi KYPIOE EN EKEINHI THl HMEPAI, AIKAIOE KPI- 

TH£' OY MONON AE EMOI, AAAA KAI HAIj TOII HrAnHKOll 

THN Eni4>ANEIAN AYTOY. 

Ppu.19-23 inOY^iALON EAOEINOPOIME TAXEniAHMAI TAP f^ 

Co/(V./o-i4,P/}fn24 ME ErKATEAinEf\;, ArAnH^AE YON N^N AinWA, KAI EHOP- 
EYen EIE OEXZAAONIKHM, KPHZKHI £11 TAAATiAN, TiTOE 
EIE AAANJATiAN- AOYKAI EZT(*M0N0E MET'EMOY. MAP- u 
Pbm njj KON ANAAABilN ArE META EEAYTOY " EZTJ FAP MOf EYXPH- 

Ep/? V(.2if, Col iv/7f ITOE EJE AIAKON/AN. TYXIKON AE AHEITEiAA Ell Ef^ElON 12 

iCoritcf TON *<>AIA0NHN ON AnEAinONf EN TPXIAA) flARA 13 

KAPHQI EPXOWENOI 4>EP£. KAI TA BiBAlA, MAAlLTA TAI 
Acxix.24/,33/ *f^EMBPANAI. AAE:SAMAP0I "^ XALKEYE HOA- 14 

Ro]\6c\t.Psm^.i% AA MO) KAKA ENEAEIHATC AnOAflSIE/ AYin/ O 

KYPIOZ: KATA TA EPPA AYTOY" ON KAI lY <1>Y- 16 
AAIEOY/AIAN tap an TEETH TO/H HMETEPO/ZI 

Aorcnr . 

a riAHPfiZO/V cf Col iv.17. i. r" IYN EMO/ MONOE 2D etc. 

c of 2Cor. X1.5, x;i.;( i/rrepAtofw. 



riPOI TIMOeHON B \^^s~2x 

)6 EN THf nPQTHi MOY AnOAOHAI OYAEIE MOI nAPEPE- Ac xxii.i, XAii/.f 

NETO, AAAA HANTEE ME ErKATEAinON' MH AYfO/I 
17 AOfl2I0E'H. O AE KYPIOE MOI HAPEETH, KAI ENEAYNA- Ac XXiii.Jl (xxvia3).Ppi«'3 

MOIE: me, INA AI' EMOY to KHPYPMA "^nAHPO^^OPHeH/, Rox.14., xvl.ZSf.it^ori.i^ 

KAI AKOYEHI HANTA TA EDNH- KAI EP/yIOHN E/< ITO- Ac xxviu.zr/ 
2» MAT02: AEONTOE. PYZETAI ME O KYPIOE AnO HAN- Ps xxii.ax 

TOE EPrOY nONHPOY, KAI EAEE/ Ed THN BAXIAEIAN 2 Cor /.»o, Gd i,4 
16 AYTOY THN EnOYPAN/ON. Co/ iV)i, lT<?ii.i2 

a* H AOEA EJE TOYI AinNAI TAN AinNON. AM4N. Gai.5, PplV.20/ 
19 AEnAIAl nPiEKAN KAI AKYAAN, KAI TON ONHD+OPOY OIKON. Ro xvij 

W EPAITOI EMEIWEN EN KOP/NQfif • TP0<MMOW /^E Roxvi.23 Acxix.2^ 

21 AHEAinON EM M\hHTn\ /\LQENO'(NTA. EHOYAAION PPO 
XEiMONOI CA0E/N. "^'^"''^ 

AEHAZETAI E£ EYBOYAOI, KAI nOYAHI, KA( AINOE, Ppiv.:^/ 

22 Ka; KAAYA/A, KAI 0/ AMA^^OJ OANTEI. KYP/OEt^ 
META TOY n/viEYMATOE EOY. 

H, XAPIE MEG'YnnN. Co\ iv.lS 



o- HAH PQ6HI Cf Ro. VMi4 



nPOE TITON 

Roil, iCori.i nAYAO£ SoOAog Qeou ocnogToAo c 5e 'IngQu Xoiaro D, i I 

Ro viii.33 Kara nfariv eKAeKTcov 0€ol3 Ka) eniyvcjoiv 6(\r]Beia^ Tt]q 

Ro v.2etc.,2i, i.2 Kar' eua€(3eiav, In' eAnfSi ^a)Og a/a)vi'ou. i)V cnoyyeiAaTo 2 

Ro xvi.a6, Col i. 25/ 6* ai^ieuSr]^ &€6^ npo XPQV' ^ V C(ia>vi'a jv. £4>otv€P^g 6 3g 3 
Ga vi.9,iCorii4, Gaii.7 KttipoT g ^5ioi g tov Aoyov auToO €V KOpuyt^aT / Infareu^^v 

Ro xvi.26 iyu) Kar' enirgynv toO CTcorf)po^ )7/z60v ©€0u, TiVco yv/7- 4 

Roiyetc. afa; TeKvo) ^ocrd Koivfj\/ nfanv ygpig koI eipt7vr) dno ©e- 

oD naTpog Kai XpicrroO '\qaou rou acoTf]po^ qw-cov, 

Epbiil.1,14 TouTou ygpiv aneAmov ere ev Kpf]Tq Jva toc AemovTa 5 

*€ni5iOp6a5crK), na^ K(xr<xcTTqar)g Kara noAiv npccr/iu- 

rCorxvi.i repoug, <bg eyo) q- qi S)€Ta^cic]j.r?v 61' tij eCTiv av€yKAj7To^^ 6 

p.i<S$ yuvaiKos <^v/]p, TeKva i)(U>\/ niara, /xq ev KaTA7yopia 
6c<Ta)rKXj q avunoTUKTa. Se? yap tov enicTKonov avey-j 

iCoriv.i KAf^TOV €iva/, co^ ©€ou omovoM-ov , ptf) cxu0a5r), )Ltf7*6p- 

yi'Aov, /j.»7*n a p 01 vov, jUf]*nAKJKTrjv, jurj^aiaxpoKepSrjj ocA- S 
Aoc c^iAo^evov, *<|)iAaya6ov,* aax^pova, Smaiov, ocriov, 
^eyKparf), avT^xo^^vov toO kotoc t/^v ^iSa/^v niarou 9 
Aoyou, iva Suvaro^ ^ Kal nocpocKaAeTv €v rr] SiSacTKaAro: 
Tr] uyiaivouari kw joug avriAeyovra^ lAey^e/v. Eia) yap 10 
noAAo) dvunoraKToi, * laaraioAoyoi Kal*4'p6vancxTai, 

PbpiVaa, Gai(.J2 M-aAtgro: 01 Ik nfe piropinc. ot^c 5€7*lniaTO|j.r^eiv oVrive^ 11 

oAouf 01K005 dvarpenouai 6iSa(TKovTej oc ixq Set aitrxpoo 
KipSou£ xapiv. elne Tif e^ (xurcov tSiog auroiv npo4>']T/jf, la 
KprJT6£ de/ 4»6uarar, KaKoc Bqpia, yacrrepeg ocpyaf. 
p jjiaprup/oc auTr] lar/v dA/76^^. Bi' q\/ aufav e'Acy^e 13 

iCor xvi.13 etc. auTOu^ dnoro^cos, j'va uyiaiVcocriv ev tq niarei, /xr^npoae- 14. 

XOVT€s * louSai'Koif fxuOois Kai IvroAoui dvdpconcov 
■V Ro X1.26 cit.ls.lix.ao •:'dnoo-rp£(|)Ojj.£V6dv rr^v dArjdtiav. ndyrg KaOapd ToTg 15 

KOfaotpoip- TO15 Oe p-ej-nacrp-evois- Kai an larois- ouoev KccQapov^ 

lCorviii.7 aAAdp.6M 'ftVTtti auTcov Kal 6 voug Koi j] ouvctSqcrig. ©eoy 16 

o^oAoyoua/v elSevai, ToTf Se ipyoig dpvoOvra/,*)S66AuKToi 

2 Cor 1x8 oVrej Kai dneidef^ KOf) npd^ nay gpyov dya^ov dSoKip-oi. 

Li) Se AdAei a npenei Tr) uyiocivouar) SiSacKcxXta- 1 II 
npeajiuraj* v/]<j)aAf'ous eTvai, a€/j.voJ^,*aa54>pova5, uyiar- 2 

cf. iT/7i.3 vovTag T^ruarei, r?} dy dnr),Tr} unof^ovr) *• np6a/3urrSag 3 

(vu<xuTu)£ Iv^KaTacTTt^fjari *<6ponpenfe?$, ^ri*5/a/36Aoui; 
p.i7<5€ oi'voj noAAoD 5e5ouA6L)p.evai'*KaAo5i5aaKdAou^/j'va 4. 
*(ja)(|)pov)'^a)a/i rdf v€a5*4*iAdv5poug €?va/*(^iAoT6K- 



nPOE TITON .II5-I9 

5 vous, *aiD<\)pov(X';, dcyvag^ * omoupyoug, dyg^gg, unoTaaaQ^€Yag Epb v.ai-f 
TO?g iSioig dvSp£xg/v, iva ixrj Ao yog toO Qeou iSAaa^/j/i^Tou* Ro ix.6jii.24 

6 Touj' vecoTepou^^ chcrauT(o^ napaKOcAfei cr£o4)pov€Tv nepl nav- 

7 ra creauTov napfcx<^M-evop runov KaAcov epycuv, €vt/) SiSa- 
8" aKa\ia*a4>^op''ofv*aenv6Tr7rG[, Xoyov uyirj,*aKOCTayva)OTOY, 

jyq 6 €^ IvavTig^ gyrpanp ^r]66v e'xcov Aeyeiv nep'i ^^cuv (5f)au- 2Tb iii.14 
9 Aov SouXoug 'iSloig S^anoraig unoTaaaeaSai, ev naaiv eu- Col iii.22 
10 apecTTOug elvoci, yif} dv/TiAeyovTaj, l^r) voa(J)i^O|j.6'voL»g 
dAXd nacrav nfanv ev5eiKvu/-tevooj dya6f7v, Iva T/7V <Si- 
SaaKaA/'av roO aojTi^po^ rj^co\' Seou Hoa\xcoaiy ev 
rr ndcr/v. €n€(|>dvr) ydp n yocpK; toO &eou * gqjTn- Ro vi^JJiCorxvioctc. 

12 piog n«a/v dv^pconoi c. naiSeuouaa r)p.ds, I'va dpvrjaa|ievoi 

IS Ka) Smafcog koi * €uae(ico; ^i)aajij.ev ev T(p vuv aiasvi^npoa- 

Seypiievot Tr)v piaKapi'av eAm^or k(x) 6ni(|)dv6iav rf]^ So^rjg cf.iCori.7. 

14 rod j ueydAou QcSoO ko/ Gonqpo^ rjpicov 'IrjaoO XpiaroO, o^ zCoriv.S 
fe ScoK ev 6«uTQv unep t7picov , Tva AyTpcocHTA/ rJM-aj aho G-ai.4. 
nicHC iNOMid^c Ka) K^^Oe^picH ee^yrco A^^oN^nepioycioN^^r/Ao)- 

15 Trjv KttAcov fipyajv. Taura AdAei, Ka/ napaKocAe/ nai G-ai.i4 
l'A€y)(6 fierd ndo"/7§ iniTayrjj, }ir]Se!g crou*n€pi(^poverrco. 

JH 1 I no|j.rju.vi7CTK€ (XOTOug dp)(o:T^ €4o'-'gi'cMg unordggecr- Ro xiii.i 

6«i, ne(8ap)(£7v, npoj ndv epyov ayocQov £TO//.xoug eTvai, aCorix.S 

2 |j.r)Sdva /3Aacr(i>i7^e?v,*d/jdj(oug eTvai, feniemeTg , ndaav ev- Pp iv.5 

3 SeiKvu/ievouf npaoTrjTa npd^ ndvTgs\dv6p66nous' . ni^ev aCor viii.24, x.i 
ya p noT6 kcx'i njJ.67g dvyoqroi, dntiOeTg, nAavco^evoi, Sou- Gaiv.3, Epb i/.3 
Aeuovreg eni^u^i'aig Kg) nSovaTc; noiKTAa/g^ev Kawa kw Ro vi. 6,12, Col iii.5|f 

4 c|)dova)*6iayovTe$, *aTuy/7Tor,p.(a-ouvTej dXAgAoug . ore Se Gaiv.a^ 
1 XPno'TQ"'''?? ►^Of' »? c}5iAo(v6pconra ene<|3dvr] tou atoTfjpoj Roii.4, xi.22 

5 nM.d}v \QeoO, ouK ki epycow rdiv Iv 5iKaioauvrj,d€no/f]- Epbii.g/ 
<Tapi€v »7pieTg dAXd Kara to uutou eheog eawae'v /)/u.dg 
5id AouTpou naXiyyeveaiag Ka) dvocKajvcoCTfecoj Hveu- 

6 fjLarcif *Ay»ou^ outl^ex^ev 6<})' ;7p.d<; nAouo-i'coj 6id 'IrygoC t Roiii. 15 cit Is lix 7 

7 XpigTou rod a iDTfjpog juj^v , I'va SixaiOidivTeg rrj e k€i - Ro vii 25 dc. /i(.24,v.i,2i 
vou yjapin KAnpov6|aoi yev^ScijjLiev KOT'eAniSa ^a)r|g aioj- Roviii.iyjv )4. 

8: viog . niCTTog 6 Aoyog* Ka) nep) toutcov /3ouAo|j.a/ 

ae*<5ia/3€/5ajou(70ai, Tvct* 4>povTi'^a)ai koAcuv epycoy npo- ^ 

iaraoBai of neniorciiKores 0€a) . Tdurd eari KcxAd Ka) Ro)v3 

9 *aj(j)eA)pia toT^ dvOpconoig • p.copag Se Iqrqoeig Ka) 



!H9-.5 nPOE TITON 

*ycv€aXoyi'ai Kai e'peij kcxi piaxaf *vo/-iiKa$ ncpiiaraao 
iCop iii.2o cit Ps.xcivii e'l&i yap as/UJcpeXel^ Kai jxaraioj , *aip€T«KOv avdpconov lo 

jj.6Ta (^I'av Ka) Seurepocv voudeaiav napa/ToO, eiScbi; u 
Pbm2i 5ti^* e^eorrpanra/ 6 Toiourog Ka) a.\xapTd\/ei (Bv^ocuto- 
HaTdt<piTO£. 

lCorxvi.3-24 OTAN riEMifO APTEMAN HPOL ZE H TYXIKON, li" 

rnOYAALON EAGEIN HPOE ME E/E NIKOnOA/N" EKEI 
TAP KEKPIKA nAPAXEiMAEA/. ZHNAN TONNOMIKON 13 

KA) AnoAAa znoYAAinr nponE/^MJON, ina mhaen 

AVTOIE AEIDH). MANQANETnEAN AE KA/ Of MMETE- 14 
PO/ KAAQN EP^N nPOIETAEeAI EIE TAI ANATKAIAE 
XPEIAI, INA MH ClLlN AKAPnOI. AEnAZOIMTAI EE OJ 15 
MET' EA^OY RAN TEE. AEHAEAI TOYE <l>IAOYNTAr 
H/V\AE EN niETEI. H XAPIE META HfKNTQN YMQN. 



PRINTED IN ENGLAND 
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 





• 


>> 




£^ 


■Xi : 


CD 




'-P 


rH 


• 


O 


rO 


-P 


s 


•rH 


c 


•H 


fU 


o 

o 


e-i nq 

• 
oi 

0): 

■p: 


k;> 






NQ 




CD; 


o 






■^ 




rHi 


L--- 




cc5i 


H 




o 

-P! 

CQi 

ail 

0)1 




• 


-P; 




s 




o 


• 


<+Hi 


-p 


0^ 


O; 


CO 


m 


' Si 


0) 


c 


<Di 


rH 


o 


Hi 


-p 


ca 


rjai 


CO 


•H 


Oi 


•H 


U 


fni 


■/^ 


U 


Q^ 


w 


03 






W 


0)1 


•\ 




x!i 


t---^ 


In 


E^i 


I-" 


o 




•;■=! 


Ji 


« 




■ij 




o 

pi 


-0 


•4-> 

H 



University of Toronto 
L'brary 



DO NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 




Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat, "Ref. Index File" 

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU